destruction of america

[a.d._510_n_ok]

The Death Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pushed Me To Join The Satanic Temple

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom-joins-satanic-temple_n_5f6b3565c5b629afbe990c15?fbclid=IwAR0lrqTG8zeengi2dCwQxAtqC-mypy17aPb9PvMtMB4T5Xn8QmB4MblH6eI

[angliagt]

          Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder.....

[john510]

13 minutes ago, angliagt said:

          Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder.....

Never mind her,she's mentally ill.

[datzenmike]

2 hours ago, Jesse C. said:

 

Not everyone is a Dead Eye Sniper like you, and no, AR's are rarely used for hunting, unless it's an AR-10 for Wild Boar hunts. 

 

But you can have a single shot version if it makes you feel safer and less dangerous 

 

 

So the excuse for hunting with a 30 round clip is poor marksmanship? Or hogs that actually fight back?

I'm no sniper.

I don't hunt

I don't need a rifle.

[datzenmike]

19 minutes ago, john510 said:

Never mind her,she's mentally ill.

 

Did you even read it? You saw satanic and formed your opinion. There's nothing fucked up with what she wrote about other than that one word.

[frankendat]

12 hours ago, datzenmike said:

I think the author would be appalled if he could see what has happened as a result of what he penned all those years ago.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           There are sections of your reasoning where we are in complete agreement and sections that are fundamentally flawed.

If you dig into the early history of the United States, the assumption, quoted above, is unequivocally proven false. The settlers came to the United States  to be free from tyranny.  The founders were keenly aware of the dangers of a tyrannical government and cast language in the Constitution to prevent it.  The framers included  the freedom to organize an armed militia and an armed citizenry, as a method of revolution.  The founders believed in their new government, but did not discount the tendency of government to over reach. Armed militia and armed citizens, were intended to possess  the same weaponry as the military.

Take note, here is where I agree with gun control legislation: I am fine with the registration, licenses, background checks for fully automatic machine guns and concede rocket launchers, land mines, hand grenades, and the like, should not be available for purchase, but the buck stops there.

The founders would certainly be horrified by the degradation of the first amendment, not because of vulgarities often and openly expressed, but the failure of citizens to address it. In early America, offensive remarks  would be met by challenge of pistols at dawn.  As I have mentioned, before subsequent policies  undermined  application, the “Fighting words” doctrine created a defense against charge of unlawful battery.

12 hours ago, datzenmike said:

The perception is that apparently armed criminals overwhelm the police who can't protect you so you need guns to protect yourself. May be true but sounds like a justification for the 2nd.

 

The perception? Aren’t we watching the reality of police failing to engage, failing to control, failing to protect and retreating, when confronted by mostly unarmed individuals. Lucky there are not more armed rioters, the police might pack up and leave the state.

12 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Can you trust the system to protect you because (without proof or witnesses)  you alleged that someone threatened you??? Even if 4 or 5 of your neighbors said the same thing it seems to carry no weight.

 

Agreed. The system is  flawed and often fails to protect THEREFORE it is incumbent on the individual to insure the safety  of himself and his family.

12 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Seems to me it would be easier, cheaper on limited police resources to weed this type of personality out and refuse gun ownership in the first place. But unlikely. By the time there is credible proof it's way too late.  Clinically certified psychologist I'm not (who is?) of course but the litmus test is if you fear for your safety. By the time action can be taken it's often too late and obvious after

 

This is the challenge of crime in a free society. For  punishment or restriction of the fundamental freedoms  guaranteed by the Constitution a crime must be committed and guilt proven in accordance with due process . Infringement  on these principles will ultimately result in tyranny.

If you think it through, the flaws are apparent. For example, it would be murder to kill the rioters, marching and carrying signs that call for violence. Self defense (as exemption against a charge of murder) would not apply. Why? Is there evidence to support the written and chanted threats are delivered in jest or disingenuous? It would be murder, because self defense is only available to those in immediate fear for life.  Self defense is only available to protect against the crime of murder, therefore, the elements of murder must be met. Although often aggravating, the rationale is clear, loss of liberty, based on speculation, conjecture, or premonition is  contrary to the goal of a free society.

Edited September 25, 2020 by frankendat

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[datzenmike]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

12 hours ago, datzenmike said:

I think the author would be appalled if he could see what has happened as a result of what he penned all those years ago.

 

12 minutes ago, frankendat said:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           There are sections of your reasoning where we are in complete agreement and sections that are fundamentally flawed.

 

If you dig into the early history of the United States, the assumption, quoted above, is unequivocally proven false. The settlers came to the United States  to be free from tyranny.  The founders were keenly aware of the dangers of a tyrannical government and cast language in the Constitution to prevent it.  The framers included  the freedom to organize an armed militia and an armed citizenry, as a method of revolution.  The founders believed in their new government, but did not discount the tendency of government to over reach. Armed militia and armed citizens, were intended to possess  the same weaponry as the military.

 

 

 

 

You're reading a lot into one thin sentence.

 

As I see it a militia is to supplement an insufficient or undermanned army.  In a fledgling somewhat weak and struggling country this would be for defending against outside forces not tyranny from within. It's assumed that the new USA is the greatest thing since sliced bread....tyranny from within would be the farthest thing from their minds. I think you give the founding fathers way too much credit for seeing into the future of what might be. In all of 250 years has this well regulated militia ever once had to rise up and confront a tyrant??? But what ever. As to this militia, it would be civilians with their own arms because the new country couldn't afford to equip them. The militia would also be regulated and certainly kept at a minimum number as you can't count on volunteers in enough number in a crisis. So as I see it the militia is not the general citizenry but designated people. So this is all about the right for a militia to keep and bear arms. 

 

So where is this militia today????  What happened to it??  Did it morph into the National Guard?

 

When this was penned guns, were loaded by hand by pouring gunpowder down the barrel and using a piece of flint. So yes the authors would be appalled at what happened to their 2nd amendment and how it's been applied. They would be appalled at gun violence, mass shootings and the NRA..... and no tyrant in sight.

 

 

[wayno]

You must be kidding Mike, they wrote the Constitution just after winning a war with England, this country the United States of America was not weak nor undermanned, but I am sure they were happy for the war to end but they were likely well aware that there were those who were not happy England lost and I suspect they had that in mind when they wrote the Constitution, they were done with England and their rules/taxes/ect; they wrote the Constitution in an atmosphere of what I have worked hard for I am going to keep, and they will protect what is theirs with any means necessary.

I suspect they would think why would you ever give up your only protection, if you don't have a way to protect yourself your just meat for something else to survive.

Edited September 25, 2020 by wayno

[Mattndew76]

If you guys want to read about the intentions of the United States Founders.

 

https://oll.libertyfund.org/

 

https://oll.libertyfund.org/groups/36

Edited September 25, 2020 by Mattndew76

[john510]

10 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

Did you even read it? You saw satanic and formed your opinion. There's nothing fucked up with what she wrote about other than that one word.

No i didn't read it Mike.I'm a Trump supporter and you know Trump supporters can't read.A very controversial Supreme Court Justice  died,she's overreacting in a a strange way.It won't affect her life or her children's in any noticeable way.To link up with anything Satan is kind of stupid.IMO.There is no Satan.

[banzai510(hainz)]

9 hours ago, datzenmike said:

So where is this militia today????

Canadian Rangers!!!!!!!!!with British 303s  OK maybe LongBranch made ones.

First Nations defending Canada

[datzenmike]

13 minutes ago, john510 said:

No i didn't read it Mike.I'm a Trump supporter and you know Trump supporters can't read.A very controversial Supreme Court Justice  died,she's overreacting in a a strange way.It won't affect her life or her children's in any noticeable way.To link up with anything Satan is kind of stupid.IMO.There is no Satan.

 

 What can I say but....

[datzenmike]

7 hours ago, Mattndew76 said:

If you guys want to read about the intentions of the United States Founders.

 

https://oll.libertyfund.org/

 

https://oll.libertyfund.org/groups/36

 

Even if written 250 years ago who can know for certain without placing their own bias on it, what the intentions were? Maybe the original authors? With good 'intentions' it's probably close but an interpretation.

[datzenmike]

9 hours ago, wayno said:

You must be kidding Mike, they wrote the Constitution just after winning a war with England, this country the United States of America was not weak nor undermanned, but I am sure they were happy for the war to end but they were likely well aware that there were those who were not happy England lost and I suspect they had that in mind when they wrote the Constitution, they were done with England and their rules/taxes/ect; they wrote the Constitution in an atmosphere of what I have worked hard for I am going to keep, and they will protect what is theirs with any means necessary.

I suspect they would think why would you ever give up your only protection, if you don't have a way to protect yourself your just meat for something else to survive.

 

 

“There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.”
― Sun Tzu,  The Art Of War

Almost any country after a war is weakened and vulnerable. Depletion of the army, money and the population tired of it. The US would be no different and did not start out as a world power but from humble beginnings and great though as yet untapped potential. Just saying...

[MikeRL411]

What is a "well regulated militia" ?

 

"Militia" is all male citizens between the ages of 16 and 62.  Thanks to equal rights this today would include females.

 

"Well regulated" is the training and target practice required to effectively use your firearms.  Back in the military draft age enlistees and draftees spent several days at the firing range learning how to adjust [ regulate ] the sights on their M1 so as to effectively hit targets at various ranges.

 

So, a "well regulated militia" is a group of people who can shoot straight.

[Jesse C.]

 

[Jesse C.]

14 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

So the excuse for hunting with a 30 round clip is poor marksmanship? Or hogs that actually fight back?

I'm no sniper.

I don't hunt

I don't need a rifle.

 

From what I know, they are pretty mean and destructive. And if you come upon a pack of them, having a loaded mag helps. 

 

And as for Rifles, I hope you never need one. That way we are all a bit safer! 

 

 

 

 

 

[wayno]

What we had was a population that was sick of the minority(elite) interfering in their daily lives, judging/controlling us with their personal agenda in mind rather than the good for all to live their lives in pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

We didn't have an army before 1776, but we had one afterwards and not many were going to screw with us.

 

Origins. The Continental Army consisted of soldiers from all 13 colonies and, after 1776, from all 13 states. When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army.

 

What about those that were sorry that England lost the war, that is an important factor to consider when the United States of America was formed and the Constitution was written, they wanted no minority to dictate to the masses, unfortunately that is what is happening today, politicians and the elite that own them said politicians attack/ignore the Constitution daily and then they sit back and do what they want until the courts tell them that it is not constitutional for them to do that, in the meantime they find or make a way around the constitution(loophole) like what they have done during Covid, small businesses are closed while large businesses that are owned by the elite are open.

 

Have you noticed that for the United States of America it appears that the wars before 1960 in general were shorter wars and after 1960 they became longer to the point where they seem to never end, it appears to get worse after the elite were able buy politicians votes legally, we became the policeman of the world, this is when we started importing products using slave labor in other countries, this is solely because of the elite and their drive to be richer/more powerful than any before them, they are the problem with this planet, the regular people have nothing to do with the problems with this planet, the elite are the problem.

 

2 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

“There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.”
― Sun Tzu,  The Art Of War

Almost any country after a war is weakened and vulnerable. Depletion of the army, money and the population tired of it. The US would be no different and did not start out as a world power but from humble beginnings and great though as yet untapped potential. Just saying...

 

[banzai510(hainz)]

37 minutes ago, Jesse C. said:

I don't need a rifle

that guy with a AR is a pussy!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ooph!]

The federalist papers are the founders fleshing out idea's like the right to bear arms and help convey the thoughts behind what was really meant and desired with the official words in the document.

From what I've read they wanted to be able to defend against a foreign army yet did not want a standing army because they had just fought one and could see how easily its power could be used to suppress it's own people. Two factions of politics, Federalists thought the Federal govt. should be in control and anti Federalists that wanted to keep control away from a centralized power. So to continue what they actually had (militia) basically a decentralized army in my mind seemed natural. The right to bear arms enshrined thinking along these lines to insure the centralized govt could not take away guns so that its power could not be used against the people.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 You may miss the fact there are commas in that sentence, it is those commas that separate those meanings, those ideas.

 

And as for assault weapons that is exactly the type of weapon they were discussing, the most popular weapon at the time was the

British Pattern 1769 short land musket the standard issue weapon of the British army or in other words the most advanced weapon widely available at the time that was intended for killing humans not squirrels but I'm sure it did a fine job of that as well.

 

 

[Jesse C.]

1 hour ago, banzai510(hainz) said:

that guy with a AR is a pussy!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[datzenmike]

3 hours ago, MikeRL411 said:

What is a "well regulated militia" ?

 

"Militia" is all male citizens between the ages of 16 and 62.  Thanks to equal rights this today would include females.

 

"Well regulated" is the training and target practice required to effectively use your firearms.  Back in the military draft age enlistees and draftees spent several days at the firing range learning how to adjust [ regulate ] the sights on their M1 so as to effectively hit targets at various ranges.

 

So, a "well regulated militia" is a group of people who can shoot straight.

 

We're talking about the founding fathers time.

[datzenmike]

2 hours ago, Ooph! said:

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 You may miss the fact there are commas in that sentence, it is those commas that separate those meanings, those ideas.

 

  Separate meanings should/would require separate sentences other wise you are cherry picking. IF there are two statements here with separate meanings as you suggest there should be a period after State.... 

 

1/ A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

2/ The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 Actually the commas join everything together nicely with small pauses between packets of related information. If it was intended that all people could bear and keep arms then it should not have been mixed in with the reason for having a regulated militia.

 

"The rights of the people, who make up a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"  Same thing just less flowery and clearer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

And as for assault weapons that is exactly the type of weapon they were discussing, the most popular weapon at the time was the

British Pattern 1769 short land musket the standard issue weapon of the British army or in other words the most advanced weapon widely available at the time that was intended for killing humans not squirrels but I'm sure it did a fine job of that as well.

 

 

 

Rubbish they were discussing the state of the art (then) rifles and in their wildest nightmares could they envision a single rifle with the fire power of a (then) entire army. For all they knew, as we know today, at any future time the rifle could become obsolete just as the battle tank has or warships or unmanned drones making fighter jets obsolete. 

 

 

 

 

JUST AN OPINION

 

[Mattndew76]

1 hour ago, datzenmike said:

 

  Separate meanings should/would require separate sentences other wise you are cherry picking. IF there are two statements here with separate meanings as you suggest there should be a period after State.... 

 

1/ A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

2/ The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 Actually the commas join everything together nicely with small pauses between packets of related information. If it was intended that all people could bear and keep arms then it should not have been mixed in with the reason for having a regulated militia.

 

"The rights of the people, who make up a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"  Same thing just less flowery and clearer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rubbish they were discussing the state of the art (then) rifles and in their wildest nightmares could they envision a single rifle with the fire power of a (then) entire army. For all they knew, as we know today, at any future time the rifle could become obsolete just as the battle tank has or warships or unmanned drones making fighter jets obsolete. 

 

 

 

 

JUST AN OPINION

 

 

You know nothing of the available weapon tech back then I suppose, and you keep making the assumption that they didn't think in a forward manner when they wrote the articles. You keep making the assertion that the founders were only talking in specifics of frozen time. A snap shot. Whereas everything else in the constitution is futuristic and fluid, but not the 2nd.....

 

Automatic weapons were available. Mind you it was air propellant, but the idea was available.

 

There is also a first draft that defined the 2nd in a much more specific term too, but takes a bit of effort on your part to study.