Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL X (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
    You simply tried quoting sources you didn't understand, and tried to apply them to a context under which they have no merit.
    Oh. You mean like your comments that there were 1790's era militia boards inspecting local town militias and putting them through PT at the local school gym, and that's totally what the Founding Fathers meant by "regulated" eh?

    Given the state of State arsenals in 1860 when the Civil War broke out and the fact that no small number of weapons in them were ancient and decrepit holdovers from the Revolution and War of 1812, it doesn't appear there were militia boards doing much of anything, let alone making recruits do pushups and run laps to lose a few pounds.  Generally, being in the militia was much like getting into any fraternal organization, you sucked up to members and worked the Good Ol' Boy network and if they liked you, or you had the right parents or business connections, you were in.  Whether or not they had working guns anywhere was pretty much beside the point, as long as they had something that looked suitably martial they could shoulder for a parade on the 4th.

    •  you mean mocking (0+ / 0-)

      the militia board (if it had any relevancy today) as a source of dog-and-pony antics (in modern terms, yes this is where the pt comes in) because some people still use the old prefatory-clause-is-the-only-purpose-of-the-operative-clause argument for the 2nd amendment  is moving the goal posts?  And not trying to (mis)use the old, tired arument that since 2A folks think they can have modern rifles, why stop there, why not say you can have tanks/nukes/etc isn't?

      I dunno, I guess missing the mockery on my part is in retrospect easy, if you've never been assigned to a garrison unit (where having the poncho rubber-banded to the back of your LBE instead of in your butt pack where it won't fall of can only be expected from a unit commander who never actually goes to the field).  

      Trying to use "

      Really? (4+ / 0-)
      Given that our current weapons of war include everything up to and including nuclear missiles, are you saying that the Founding Fathers truly intended for the average man on the street to be capable of annihilating entire cities, if only he had the monetary or technical wherewithal to acquire such means?
      to bolster your argument that the founding fathers only intended the people to have muskets, not modern firarms, then attempting to confuse the subject of munitions (tanks et al) and arms to show some kind of logical falacy... no, thats not moving the goal posts what so ever. /mockery (since it was arguably subtle the first time)
      •  This is (0+ / 0-)

        getting to be a long conversations, eh?

        My apologies if you intended the PT comments as mockery, it did get past me.  Probably because on the internet it no longer surprises me when someone has a complete misunderstanding or misperception of history.  (I mean, good lord, we have entire day-long marathons on the so-called History Channel about how aliens built damned near everything!).  :-p

        And I wasn't trying to confuse the issue with the munitions comment.  Let's note that you brought up the issue of "weapons of war" which is, you have to admit, covers everything in history from a pointed stick on up to the biggest nuke we have.  Once I pointed that out, you started changing the it from just "weapons of war" to then making a distinction between munitions and arms.  I merely provided definitions from Federal Code that showed that arms were munitions.

        I tip my hat to your logic that arms are munitions but not all munitions are arms, and I'll concede that on consideration that seems to be the case.  Been a long time since I've done Venn diagrams, but that makes sense even to me.

        I don't think the FF's only intended us to have flintlocks, actually, but quite often the argument around the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution in general) just devolves down to some kind of  (IMO opinion often ridiculous) "original intent" argument where people pretend to know what people living at the end of the 18th Century would think or do about real-world situations in the early 21st.  The flintlock argument on MY part was snark, because it's an attempt to show how ridiculous that Originalist argument can be when taken to the logical extreme and offering another way to look at it -- "The FF's only knew black powder weapons-- therefore it must have been their intent for people to own those".  Or, you can take the argument that they wanted people to be able to protect themselves from the government, so why not a nuke, right?  Because after all, technology now is such that the only sure way to defend yourself from a military a big as the US is to assure mutual destruction.  And Goober and his friends holed up in the backwoods with a shack full of assault rifles dreaming of "defending their rights against the tyranny" aren't going to last long against a drone strike, if the government really decided it wanted to drop the hammer on the people.

        Obviously, the FF's intended neither of those, and the hard part is for us, now 225 years on down the road, to figure out the best path with the framework they gave us to work with.  And because the Constitution itself was a compromise document hammered together by people from different sections of the country with varied interests, sometimes that framework is unfortunately vague, and because language and meanings evolve over time, we end up with arguments over what constitutes "arms" and "well-regulated" and "militia".

        •  the good news / bad news paradigm (0+ / 0-)

          of DK RKBA discussions, as illustrated by everything else above.

          Good news:  once both sides of the issue get their fill of snark and mockery of the message, both parties to the discussion can usually find common ground and some meaningful discussion can be held, about how to both preserve 2A rights while promoting safety.  We are after all, reasonable and intelligent people here (at least more reasonable then other online communities).

          Bad news:  Once the snark/mockery starts, it can take a while to let it burn itself out, then when meaningful discussion (finally) takes place, both parties are usually wiped out.  So it ends up being 90% noise and 10% useful discussion (i.e Kossacks talking to one another instead of shouting down one another).

          I just wish we could just skip past the emotion and snark every time and get to the discussion part sooner.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (126)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (38)
  • Elections (36)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Iraq (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Health Care (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site