MY IDEA FOR GETTING AMERICA'S GUN PROBLEM UNDER CONTROL (by Dachshund)

Earl said:
Any decision decided by jury nullification can be reviewed by the Supreme Court or lower Appellate courts.
Click to expand...

yep - even though that was not a power given in the constitution. So clearly the courts have the capability to defacto alter the laws without an amendment
 
Dachshund said:
Yes, I know that. Guns do not discharge themselves. But they are intentionally designed to be discharged by people. I agree that your laws and gun-control legislation has become very lax. There is an enduring myth in America that the 2nd Amendment gives every American adult some kind of universal, absolute, sacred right to rock into a firearms store and buy whatever kind of gun they want. The average American guy, can even buy a fully -automatic assault rifle like a Kalashnikov (AK-47) buying an automatic, military weapon like this just involves having to fill in a bit more paperwork (and, of course, they're expensive, so you'd need to be "cashed up"). But, in principle, an AK-47 is purchasable "over-the-counter in the states". You can probably buy an AR-15 - "America's Favourite Rifle" (which is just a semi-automatic version of a US Army, M-16) at K-Mart or Walmart (?) and a new "AR-15" is relatively inexpensive.


The great irony of America's high rate of gun violence/homicide/suicide is that all the legal arguments about access to, and ownership of, and use of, firearms in America are rooted in the 2nd Amendment. However,if you read the 2nd, and even a little bit of the history of its drafting, you'll realise it is crystal clear that the Founders ABSOLUTELY did NOT intend the 2nd Amendment to give the people an open, unfettered right to "own and bear arms" of any type, wherever, whenever and for what ever purpose they liked Rather, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified (on the 15th December, 1791) it gave healthy "WHITE MEN" of military age the right to own and bear firearms consistent with the fact they were fully expected to sign on for part-time duty in the local division of their state's MILITIA. The Founders wanted, "well-regulated" state militia's established so that IF a military emergency did arise that presented a national threat to the republic, then, for example, YOU could immediately grab you musket, then hot-foot it to you local militia division in the state of , say, Florida. So before long you and all your buddies in this local militia are all present, armed and ready to fight. Senior Officers organise for your militia to link with other state militia in what ever formation the Top US Military Brass order. And each of the 50 (I know there weren't 50 states of America in the late 18th- century) states militia groups follows suit. Depending on the nature of the foreign threat/invasion, the 18th- century equivalent of the "Joint Chiefs of Staff" - the top, most experienced, military Generals - would call the shots and deploy their mobilised nation-wide militias Another reason colonial-era American men might have needed a official permission to be armed was to defend themselves and family from attacks by Native American Indians, if they lived in a area where such attacks were frequent but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individual, self-defence.



So, let me repeat it again...IN WRITING THE 2nd AMENDMENT the Founders were not even REMOTELY concerned about any "right" they believed an individual citizen should have to own and bear arms for self-defense. What TERRIFIED all of the Founders was the prospect that a national, profession, standing army might be established in the future They did not believe that a central, federal government could ever be trusted with a large standing army. The main Founders were all very well- read men, and the lesson from history was crystal-clear - where ever centralized (National) governments had been able to build up huge standing armies, they did; and the result was always the same; the standing armies were used as tools of oppression/tyranny by reprobate, power-hungry political leaders. That was a perfectly accurate reading of European history by the Founding Fathers in their late 18th-century historical circumstance (also, they had very recently spent eight, bloody years fighting King George III's massive British standing army. The Revolutionary War of 1775 -1783 was won by a miracle - I can only put it down to the brilliant military Leadership, remarkable courage and the sheer will to prevail of one man, George Washington, because the colonials were out-gunned and out-manned by the British at just about every corner NO ONE in England or Europe gave Washington's colonials a snow-ball's chance in hell of ever rolling the British Army (NB: I've read some biographies of George Washington that focussed on his years as the Commander -in-Chief of the American rebels during the Revolution. I was stunned by his moral and physical courage - IMO he is the most noble character in the entire history of the West. If you are an American should (if you haven't already) read a good a quality text - or two - about George Washington's adventures in the years he spent fighting the Revolutionary work - IT WILL BLOW YOU AWAY.




So, to continue. When they were planning out their new republic, the Founders definitely did not want America to have a large standing army. They were all agree on that in principciple, although some, including Washington argued that a SMALL standing army might be a necessary (anyway , I wont get into that because any substantial point of policy the Founders debated tended to be debated on and on and on ad infinitum ( a lot of them were dreadfuul "wind-bags"). In sum, they did NOT want America to have a LARGE, professional, permanent army.FULL STOP.



The Second Amendment is ALL ABOUT establishing state MILITIA in preference to a central, federal, permanent, standing army And what do military-aged White men need a "right to own and bear" if state milititia are going to be the foundation of national security? The first thing that springs to mind is....... GUNS !!!



If George Washington knew that an 18 year-old boy could roll up to a gun store in the America of 2022 and legally buy an AR-15 with effectively "no questions asked" (that this firearm was 100 x nastier and most deadly Benjamin Franklin's favourite "Belton repeating musket") then calmly walk into a classroom full of 8-year-olds in a local school, then casually shoot 19 of these children to death plus two of their teachers (and I forget how many wounded survivors there were at the Uvalde school shooting) I know what he would say....




"YOU MUST BE F**KING JOKING" ?




Dachshund - the Wonder Hound



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !
Click to expand...

yes if you read it absolutely give us the right to own and bear arms so we can stand up to a tyrannical government. I own an AR10 but to call it an assault rifle is absurd as no soldier would carry it into battle. Not only is it not full auto but it has a different barrel twist meaning it would not hold up in a fire fight. If an 18 year old boy can be required to fight and eligible to vote, she should be able to buy a gun. Any military out there is 1000 times nasties than any gun a citizen can purchase. When our militias had muskets the british had muskets too.
 
Earl said:
Any decision decided by jury nullification can be reviewed by the Supreme Court or lower Appellate courts.
Click to expand...
wait, are you saying that if jury nullification acquits someone in possession of marijuana, that case can be reviewed........and then what?

Earl said:
Jury nullification has zero to do with amending the Constitution.
Click to expand...
That's not what i'm trying to say. Nullification is used if government tries to prosecute people for crimes that the government has no power to enforce.
 
zymurgy said:
We are saying the same thing "We can act like little kids and jump up and down and throw a tantrum, or we can work to fix it."
Click to expand...

your totalitarianism isn't fixing stuff.

most of these mass shooting are operations to justify taking away our self defense.

there are forces seeking to demoralize humanity.

moral degradation and slavery go hand in hand.

read mark passio and natural law.
 
AssHatZombie said:
your totalitarianism isn't fixig stuff.

most of these mass shooting are operations to justify taking away our self defense.

there are forces seeking to demoralize humanity.

moral degradation and slavery go hand in hand.

read mark passio and natural law.
Click to expand...

shh. the adults are talking.
 
Dachshund said:
I live in Australia, and when I was a kid in the 1970s I used to spend my main school holiday break - (which was 6 weeks) - on my cousin's cattle property (I think you guys call them cattle ranches). Anyway , this cattle property was big - like, many 1000s of acres. My cousin's dad had just about every kind of firearm you could imagine (except for anything fully- automatic). He had a whole big shed full of shot-guns, rifles and pistols.


I used to absolutely love going to my cousin's ranch each year, because it meant that he and I could spend hours every day shooting the f**K out of all sorts of things with high-powered guns and an endless supply of ammo !:). The thing is, that (normal, red-blooded) boys and men love shooting guns - it's HUGE FUN.:):) Blasting away at bottles and empty Coke cans and posters of Joe Biden and Ilhan Omar, etc; is more fun than getting your hands on a hot blonde with nice tits (Also, rifles don't talk mindless s**t, so don't have to listen to any of it - Ha !, Ha!:yay::yay:


I was a big fan of the American humorist P.J.O'Rourke. P.J was a conservative who used to write articles and books taking the piss out of American liberals and Lefties. I was saddened to hear that he passed away recently - "P.J" was a brilliant political humorist, and I had a lot of great laughs reading his work. The reason I mention "P.J." is that he wrote a great piece years ago about the pure joy that males derive from firing guns. I just can't remember the title of the piece at the moment. If I look it up later , I'll post it here for you.


I should add that I never ever shot a native animal like a Cockatoo, Pidgeon, Possum, Koala, Wallaby or Kangaroo, because I have always loved animals and just couldn't stomach the idea of shooting them (one exception was venomous snake that I spotted close to the homestead one evening - a "Death Adder"; and I blew it away with an old Army .303 rifle).



Dachshund - the Wonder Dog


DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
Click to expand...

PJ was from my hometown Toledo Ohio
 
1675184425819-png.1189631
 
Gun lust with the power of the NRA has resulted in millions of killings and wounding in America. We do not have to live like this. People who live abroad for a period of time say they do not miss guns and our terrible healthcare systems. We are uncivilized in both those cases. Profits over lives. Fear and chaos over peace.
 
Nordberg said:
Gun lust with the power of the NRA has resulted in millions of killings and wounding in America. We do not have to live like this. People who live abroad for a period of time say they do not miss guns and our terrible healthcare systems. We are uncivilized in both those cases. Profits over lives. Fear and chaos over peace.
Click to expand...

The NRA teaches gun safety and NRA members have defended their lives with legal weapons hundreds of thousands of times.

Millions of Americans never commit a crime with their weapons.

The NRA is not the problem, the problem is those who use their weapons illegally.
 
zymurgy said:
yep - even though that was not a power given in the constitution. So clearly the courts have the capability to defacto alter the laws without an amendment
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter and the power of review is in the Constitution.

The S.C. does not have the power to alter laws, period.
 
Last edited:
Nordberg said:
Gun lust with the power of the NRA has resulted in millions of killings and wounding in America. We do not have to live like this. People who live abroad for a period of time say they do not miss guns and our terrible healthcare systems. We are uncivilized in both those cases. Profits over lives. Fear and chaos over peace.
Click to expand...

over the last 200 years, governments have murdered over tens of millions of its own citizens. A number that far outweighs the damage we are letting the criminal element do to us. If people like living abroad, they can stay their cowardly asses away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top