On 9/30/2020 6:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 3:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-7,
jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:39:09 AM UTC-7,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 10:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 6:48:47 AM UTC-7,
AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2020 9:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a
group of
rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was
standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept
coming. He
pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the
air, and
the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot
(even a
blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually
pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other
instances
of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?

Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen
rounds in
a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What
sort of
firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen
rounds a minute".

There already are examples. Modern break action
shotguns are
one type. But it's certainly possible to design that
rounds-in-a-minute limit into most types of guns.
It's not
rocket science.


Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons
and go
back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the
Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in
sustained
volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun
they had
in mind when they wrote the second amendment!
Personally, I
think that they'd have phrased it much differently if
they
knew about the choices available to today's gun nuts.



That makes no sense at all. American schoolchildren once
learned about Lexington and Paul Revere but you were
apparently out that day.

Our beloved 2d is directly drawn from that engagement, in
which the British garrison left Boston in the dead of
night
to destroy the rifle works at Lexington. At the time,
these
were among the longest range most accurate firearms on
the
planet, significantly superior to the regular issue
'Brown
Bess' musket. Every man in Philadelphia was very much
acquainted with our recent history.

The Second Amendment was a limitation on federal power
and intended to preserve the right to own and bear arms
in service of a well regulated militia. It has to be
viewed in the context of existing state or colonial
constitutions, many of which required gun ownership as
part of compulsory service in the militia, typically to
fight off natives, slave rebellions, non-British
Europeans, etc.

A true "originalist" would read the phrase "A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State" as meaning what it says, viz., that the
individual right to bear arms is guaranteed against
federal interference when it is in service of a state
militia.

Moreover, nothing in the Bill of Rights prevented the
states from regulating weapons, which they did,
prohibiting ownership by free blacks, Catholics, those
who didn't swear loyalty oaths, slaves, indentured
servants among others. The Second Amendment was not
clearly extended to the states until 2010 -- under the
14th Amendment. A true conservative would see this as
federal over-reach and interference with state's
rights. We need to return to the era before 1868 and
the Fourteenth Amendment, back when states were free!
Activist judges have extended the Second Amendment to
the free states.

Well said.


--
- Frank Krygowski
Well, said somewhat sarcastically, too, since the
conservatives are fine if SCOTUS makes sh** up that they
like.

I just got four shooting cases at work -- all in strip
clubs or strip club parking lots and all with handguns.
Three deaths and one critical. This is not typical Portland.

I represent an insurer that insures strip clubs. The
clubs are open now, but no lap dancing due to social
distancing. I think the frustration may be causing
violence. I'm waiting for Trump to issue an executive
order requiring the states to allow lap dancing to reduce
homicides and suicides.

I quoted the Federalist Papers to Stupid Frank since they
actually describe by the founders themselves what they
were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. So why are
you pretending that anyone is making up anything?

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of
such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent
homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson,
Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist
Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Yep. "When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."

Anti-immigrant insult regarding Tsnaryev? Probably racist too.

If outlaws didn't break laws wouldn't they suffer some kind
of existential angst over that?

What the hell _was_ your point anyway?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971