Why we DO need weapons of war...

[Andy54Hawken]

Post 131...post 143 is also relevant.
This is the second time you stepped off on me.
Perhaps it is less about reading comprehension, and more about writing comprehension?

Joe

Well....golly.
Thank you for sharing that Joe.
I'll be sure to write more better. just for you....
Andy

 

[red442joe]

You are correct....you did not say we need permission.
You state, erroneously, that the 2A states one can do something.

Joe

 

[red442joe]

Well....golly.
Thank you for sharing that Joe.
I'll be sure to write more better. just for you....
Andy

You brought it up...

Joe

 

[solv3nt]

Well....golly.
Thank you for sharing that Joe.
I'll be sure to write more better. just for you....
Andy

Try using simple sentences as opposed to compound structures. Try to use "we" more often. Avoid complex words, adjectives and adverbs. Use more nouns, and avoid personal pronouns. Pretend that you're writing a bulletin for your school to read.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Give it a rest Joe....you and I ain't going to agree on much of anything...
It may be best to leave it at that.
Andy

You brought it up...

Joe

 

[thekingoftroy]

Some people and kids can't handle a 12ga's weight and recoil but they're better at handling a 5.56 AR

Also 12 gauge has higher risk of over penetration compared to high velocity AR ammo which will fragment depending on ammo selection.

 

[American123]

I can make the same argument about SUVs, but you seem to have missed the point of my OP.

Whenever I read some crap on here that seems like 'planted information' I check the join date and activity and it is consistently someone who joined a while ago and has next to no activity.

Like the entire purpose of joining was to inject a particular statement or viewpoint and then that fester, but who has no other purpose of being here which is why the activity is next to nothing.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Infringed :
verb ...past tense
Actively break the terms of ( a law , agreement , etc )
Act so as to limit or undermine ( something) encroach on

The above , for what it is worth....is a current definition of the word "infringed"

Now...it is at times misleading to use a modern , as in 20th or 21st century definition of words or terms , in regards to something written in the past.
Words and terms can change over time....Just read some of the posts and threads here on NWFA using the word "drop"

In any event...the word infringed is included in the text of the 2nd Amendment.
It is an important word to consider.

Speaking only for myself here....
Any ban or restriction on firearms is a infringement .
Since they limit what someone may own , as in keep and bear....
The same goes for things like magazine bans and restrictions...again infringement.

So bans and restrictions are seemingly at odds with the 2nd Amendment.

Now the above will been seen differently by others...
Again it is only my thoughts on the word infringed.
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

Infringed :
verb ...past tense
Actively break the terms of ( a law , agreement , etc )
Act so as to limit or undermine ( something) encroach on

The above , for what it is worth....is a current definition of the word "infringed"

Now...it is at times misleading to use a modern , as in 20th or 21st century definition of words or terms , in regards to something written in the past.
Words and terms can change over time....Just read some of the posts and threads here on NWFA using the word "drop"

In any event...the word infringed is included in the text of the 2nd Amendment.
It is an important word to consider.

Speaking only for myself here....
Any ban or restriction on firearms is a infringement .
Since they limit what someone may own , as in keep and bear....
The same goes for things like magazine bans and restrictions...again infringement.

So bans and restrictions are seemingly at odds with the 2nd Amendment.

Now the above will been seen differently by others...
Again it is only my thoughts on the word infringed.
Andy

Two many words, didn't reed.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Two many words, didn't reed.

Hmmm.....
Short version....
Bans and restrictions = infringements....
Infringements are bad and not allowed under the 2nd Amendment......
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

Hmmm.....
Short version....
Bans and restrictions = infringements....
Infringements are bad and not allowed under the 2nd Amendment......
Andy

You used some pretty big words in there.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

You used some pretty big words in there.

Hmmm...so did the fellas who wrote the Bill of Rights...maybe that is the problem...?
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

Hmmm...so did the fellas who wrote the Bill of Rights...maybe that is the problem...?
Andy

I hadd too clapp WAY two mani tines too coun.t all o.f those syllables.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I hadd too clapp WAY two mani tines too coun.t all o.f those syllables.

Now there is an image....all of the NWFA forum members having a "sing along " for each and every post....
Andy

 

[American123]

I don't need anyone to interpret the constitution or the bill of rights for me. Applying the words as they are written is sufficient, using the meanings at the time, not revisionist meanings. If people disagree that the words should not be applied as written, with the meanings they had at the time, then they should endeavor to change the words through the system devised by the founders. The founders purposely made it difficult to make changes because they foresaw nearly every problem this country would face (because problems in civilizations aren't new) and they understood that by making changes undergo extensive hurdles, it would reduce the damage people could do to their own country by acting on emotional whims, fads of the time, or even ignorance with the best of intentions.

Sadly that intention has been circumvented plenty of times through various ways. One is simply muddying the 'interpretation' as some refer to it of the writing itself. This seems the most obvious issue to easily address from a practical standpoint. Simply look at what the founders, several of whom were presidents themselves, advocated for while they were alive. Surely if there was an 'interpretation' problem they would have been able to address it at the time and not need to rely on people (with comparatively significantly less education) 250 years later.

The most powerful civilizations in history have fallen, time and time again. The founders were students of history and understood that time and time again it was due to primarily internal strifes, decay, corruption, of the civilization that led to their downfall.

As far as "weapons of war goes" - which weapons of war were banned from individual ownership when the bill of rights was penned?

Another lame claim: "they couldn't envision where technology would go, they didn't mean this modern technology." - ironic, because they made no stipulations at the time when the modern technology advanced even during their lifetime and Americans owned weaponry equal with the most advanced militaries of the world, they didn't stipulate a restriction for which items the rights applied to, or did not.

 

[oremike]

Now there is an image....all of the NWFA forum members having a "sing along " for each and every post....
Andy

 

[msgriff]

Now there is an image....all of the NWFA forum members having a "sing along " for each and every post....
Andy

Expectations


Reality

 

[AtMyself]

RPGs and C4 would be excellent tools to use against drones and armored drones/armored servers. AI has one big weakness. It can't be sustained without a way to generate electricity.

Edit. Also, could reduce the number of crazies by a big amount letting them kill themselves.

That won't save humanity from an advanced AI. Again, once it takes over, we're over.

I do like your idea of the crazies killing each other. Although I imagine collateral damage would be significant and I'm don't particularly like it when women and children are harmed.

 

[AtMyself]

I can make the same argument about SUVs, but you seem to have missed the point of my OP.

You also missed my counter argument that no amount of weapons will save humanity from an an advanced AI. Once that happens our we're doomed. Period.

 

[CamoDeafie]

"Advanced AI" is neither the savior nor the harbinger of the doom of humanity that people make it out to be. Because of its human birth/origins, and basic physics; it will never achieve the "omnipotence" that some people seem to think it will.