(03-28-2018 03:19 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:55 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 06:36 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I thought they carry the M-4, which is the most up-to-date select-fire of the modular platform? Do I have that wrong? For those of you that don't know, the AR-15, M-16, and M-4 (the latter of which is carried by most police forces) are all the same frame and module system. If you are going to argue that "no, they carry the H&K whatever", I'm gonna say "distinction without a difference."

Additionally, who said anything about being exclusively for home defense? If we are invaded by the Chi-coms, I will prefer to do my commie-killing outside.

Yes they use the M-4, and the H&Ks, but they are using different upper receivers. These receivers have shortened barrels making the much easier to maneuver indoors. And it is just not their weapons it is their training. Constant training.

Now you do you but anybody thinking they are going to stop a military unit, forgein orndomestic, on there own with and AR-15 is living Rambo. Your best bet is to retreat and live to fight another day.

That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.

We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

It's especially absurd when you consider certain parts of our country start training their children with guns and hunting at a young age. We had some Germans come shoot at our place , grown men that had never held a gun much less fired one. Its hard to even imagine. I got my first shotgun when I was 12.

Must've been a late bloomer. Guess you got your first dip of snuff and beer at 18 and 21 too huh?

not true at all if you count the time we went way down in the bottoms at 14 and bought tickle pink at the cinderblock beer joint from lefty. bet you cant guess why he was called lefty.

Only hand he had left thanks to a tragic firecracker accident or farming accident?

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 06:36 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:03 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 02:39 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  So by that rationale, the US military should just go with handguns? I don't think so. I don't think you believe that either, so yes, it IS true - banning the AR-15 would in fact diminish, damage, infringe upon our rights to defend our country from a foreign invader or tyrannical dictator/government, should one come to power.

Now, GIVEN THESE FACTS, do you think our freedoms are more important or our safety? It's really a simple question to answer. It's either one, or the other.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Experts have said the AR-15 is a poor choice for home defense. Just as carrying a side arm as you main weapon into combat is a poor choice. Do our special forces operators carry the military equivalent of the AR-15? No, again it would be a poor choice. The AR-15 is fun to shoot but is popular mostly because it makes wannabes feel good.

I thought they carry the M-4, which is the most up-to-date select-fire of the modular platform? Do I have that wrong? For those of you that don't know, the AR-15, M-16, and M-4 (the latter of which is carried by most police forces) are all the same frame and module system. If you are going to argue that "no, they carry the H&K whatever", I'm gonna say "distinction without a difference."

Additionally, who said anything about being exclusively for home defense? If we are invaded by the Chi-coms, I will prefer to do my commie-killing outside.

Yes they use the M-4, and the H&Ks, but they are using different upper receivers. These receivers have shortened barrels making the much easier to maneuver indoors. And it is just not their weapons it is their training. Constant training.

Now you do you but anybody thinking they are going to stop a military unit, forgein orndomestic, on there own with and AR-15 is living Rambo. Your best bet is to retreat and live to fight another day.

That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.

We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage


“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington

The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

(03-27-2018 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So by that rationale, you should be able to have the same weapons our military has?

(03-27-2018 05:03 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  You are comparing apples to oranges. Experts have said the AR-15 is a poor choice for home defense. Just as carrying a side arm as you main weapon into combat is a poor choice. Do our special forces operators carry the military equivalent of the AR-15? No, again it would be a poor choice. The AR-15 is fun to shoot but is popular mostly because it makes wannabes feel good.

I'd say that an AR is as poor a choice for home defense as it is for dove hunting.

A rifle is a poor choice for home defense as well, as is a 9mm for protecting yourself while on a boar hunt.

An AR-15 may be fun to shoot (I've shot them and I don't really get it) but I'd say that its BEST purpose is to protect us from a tyrannical government, from a family who lives in the middle of nowhere (or perhaps even parts of Chicago) from being over-run by a gang (or a zombie apocalypse). While they may be 'wanna-be's' in current context, there are numerous places in the world today where the safest family on the block is the one with the Armalite... and there are places in this country where the local police are goons and a family with an AR might be able to hold them off long enough for PROPER authorities to arrive.....

and I think the reality that the past few decades have demonstrated is that someone with relatively light arms and some ingenuity defending their home against a far better equipped military can be HIGHLY effective, and that 'allies' often side with the locals (and use our military gear against us)... implying that the kid from Oklahoma who gets told to drop bombs on Oklahoma citizens might just decide to turn on his bosses and side with 'the resistance'.

Many gun owners are in the military. Not all of them by any means, but many.

And people keep talking about Scalia noting that the right to bear arms is not absolute, but they ignore that the comparison he makes is to freedom of speech. I don't think anyone has a problem with places like schools or banks being able to keep guns out (organized speech on someone else's private property)... or that using a gun to threaten someone who cuts you off in traffic should be legal (yelling fire in a theater).... the problem many have is with 'gun free' zones which keep 'the proper authorities' from having guns in those zones and makes them targets for criminals who won't give a damn about the 'slap on the wrist' for the gun charge if they're planning on killing innocent people

I've got a pair of FR98 12 gauge AR-Style shotguns. So much for people fussing about AR's being a poor choice for self defense.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 06:36 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:03 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  You are comparing apples to oranges. Experts have said the AR-15 is a poor choice for home defense. Just as carrying a side arm as you main weapon into combat is a poor choice. Do our special forces operators carry the military equivalent of the AR-15? No, again it would be a poor choice. The AR-15 is fun to shoot but is popular mostly because it makes wannabes feel good.

I thought they carry the M-4, which is the most up-to-date select-fire of the modular platform? Do I have that wrong? For those of you that don't know, the AR-15, M-16, and M-4 (the latter of which is carried by most police forces) are all the same frame and module system. If you are going to argue that "no, they carry the H&K whatever", I'm gonna say "distinction without a difference."

Additionally, who said anything about being exclusively for home defense? If we are invaded by the Chi-coms, I will prefer to do my commie-killing outside.

Yes they use the M-4, and the H&Ks, but they are using different upper receivers. These receivers have shortened barrels making the much easier to maneuver indoors. And it is just not their weapons it is their training. Constant training.

Now you do you but anybody thinking they are going to stop a military unit, forgein orndomestic, on there own with and AR-15 is living Rambo. Your best bet is to retreat and live to fight another day.

That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.

We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage


“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington

The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not me. I believe it to be a cornerstone of our 2A rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately, the Judicial Branch has seen fit to twist, contort, and "interpret" the Constitution as to banish "We, the People" from owning such regs. Regulation M-16, Regulation grenade launcher, regulation cannon, etc. And regarding the first part of your quote, every time a state militia is in the news (Michigan Militia for example), it is met with ridicule and disdain. The people who try to train in the spirit of that which you are suggesting are marginalized and demonized by the media for the general public to lap up like a bunch of sheeple puppies.

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

A well educated populace, being necessary for the survival of a free state, the people's right to own books shall not be infringed.

I guess you think that the only people that should be allowed to have books with that language should be in a 'well-educated populace'?

By the way, you do know that under common English rules of grammar, the first clause does not lay down a requirement, correct? But I guess that they didnt cover that in Prog-school...

Kind of like, dark colored houses dont reflect enough sunlight and get hot, and I think I will go to the paint store. Does the first clause create a *requirement* to buy light colored paint? Or is it something called 'a reasoning clause' that cites a good cause, but not a requirement? Pick one of them for us XCentrick : requirement, or good reason to? Should be easy to answer, but Progs seem to get caught up in this 4th grade question all the time for some reason....

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Get at it, then.

Seriously, try it. Start the process.

Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at csnbbs.

Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google.

Man up, put together a plan, and take the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 06:36 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I thought they carry the M-4, which is the most up-to-date select-fire of the modular platform? Do I have that wrong? For those of you that don't know, the AR-15, M-16, and M-4 (the latter of which is carried by most police forces) are all the same frame and module system. If you are going to argue that "no, they carry the H&K whatever", I'm gonna say "distinction without a difference."
Additionally, who said anything about being exclusively for home defense? If we are invaded by the Chi-coms, I will prefer to do my commie-killing outside.

Yes they use the M-4, and the H&Ks, but they are using different upper receivers. These receivers have shortened barrels making the much easier to maneuver indoors. And it is just not their weapons it is their training. Constant training.
Now you do you but anybody thinking they are going to stop a military unit, forgein orndomestic, on there own with and AR-15 is living Rambo. Your best bet is to retreat and live to fight another day.

That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.
We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not leave it out, just realize that per the rules of English grammar, "well-regulated" applies to the militia and not to the right to bear arms, which very clearly "shall not be infringed."

(03-28-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 06:36 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I thought they carry the M-4, which is the most up-to-date select-fire of the modular platform? Do I have that wrong? For those of you that don't know, the AR-15, M-16, and M-4 (the latter of which is carried by most police forces) are all the same frame and module system. If you are going to argue that "no, they carry the H&K whatever", I'm gonna say "distinction without a difference."
Additionally, who said anything about being exclusively for home defense? If we are invaded by the Chi-coms, I will prefer to do my commie-killing outside.

Yes they use the M-4, and the H&Ks, but they are using different upper receivers. These receivers have shortened barrels making the much easier to maneuver indoors. And it is just not their weapons it is their training. Constant training.
Now you do you but anybody thinking they are going to stop a military unit, forgein orndomestic, on there own with and AR-15 is living Rambo. Your best bet is to retreat and live to fight another day.

That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.
We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not leave it out, just realize that per the rules of English grammar, "well-regulated" applies to the militia and not to the right to bear arms, which very clearly "shall not be infringed."

Correct. In fact, the truth is many of the founding fathers didnt want the Bill of Rights attached the constitution for just this type of debate. The wanted a very very limited government and they felt that a Bill of Rights might be misinterpeted as giving the people ONLY those rights. Thier intention was just the opposite---they wanted the constitution to be read as "any right not EXPRESSLY given to the governnent was retained by the people". They would laugh at folks who now try to claim that the second amendment clause is limited to just militias or for hunting. Remember the context. These guys had just overthrown an overbearing government. They wanted citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from any threat---including the government.

(03-28-2018 08:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...the problem many have is with 'gun free' zones which keep 'the proper authorities' from having guns in those zones...

Wait...what? Cops (and SRO's) aren't allowed to have guns in gun free zones?

Quote:Reflective of the importance of this role is that 60 percent always wear their law enforcement uniforms and almost all (97 percent) carry their guns while providing service to their schools.

Ohio SRO Program - WHAT SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS DO IN SCHOOLS

(03-28-2018 02:55 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 06:36 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:03 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  You are comparing apples to oranges. Experts have said the AR-15 is a poor choice for home defense. Just as carrying a side arm as you main weapon into combat is a poor choice. Do our special forces operators carry the military equivalent of the AR-15? No, again it would be a poor choice. The AR-15 is fun to shoot but is popular mostly because it makes wannabes feel good.

I thought they carry the M-4, which is the most up-to-date select-fire of the modular platform? Do I have that wrong? For those of you that don't know, the AR-15, M-16, and M-4 (the latter of which is carried by most police forces) are all the same frame and module system. If you are going to argue that "no, they carry the H&K whatever", I'm gonna say "distinction without a difference."

Additionally, who said anything about being exclusively for home defense? If we are invaded by the Chi-coms, I will prefer to do my commie-killing outside.

Yes they use the M-4, and the H&Ks, but they are using different upper receivers. These receivers have shortened barrels making the much easier to maneuver indoors. And it is just not their weapons it is their training. Constant training.

Now you do you but anybody thinking they are going to stop a military unit, forgein orndomestic, on there own with and AR-15 is living Rambo. Your best bet is to retreat and live to fight another day.

That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.

We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

It's especially absurd when you consider certain parts of our country start training their children with guns and hunting at a young age. We had some Germans come shoot at our place , grown men that had never held a gun much less fired one. Its hard to even imagine. I got my first shotgun when I was 12.

I was also 12 when I was given my own shotgun to have, take good care of, and shoot at targets and hunt with. I was 8 or 9 when I started shooting though.

My son will shoot for the first time this summer, and we’ll instruct him on proper use, care, and professionalism with firearms from there. He’s done well with his BB gun so far.

I’m a strong proponent of teaching the next generation of men how to fix their own car, build things with their own hands, and know how to handle a gun and practice self defense and defense of the defenseless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-28-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Yes they use the M-4, and the H&Ks, but they are using different upper receivers. These receivers have shortened barrels making the much easier to maneuver indoors. And it is just not their weapons it is their training. Constant training.
Now you do you but anybody thinking they are going to stop a military unit, forgein orndomestic, on there own with and AR-15 is living Rambo. Your best bet is to retreat and live to fight another day.

That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.
We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not leave it out, just realize that per the rules of English grammar, "well-regulated" applies to the militia and not to the right to bear arms, which very clearly "shall not be infringed."

Correct. In fact, the truth is many of the founding fathers didnt want the Bill of Rights attached the constitution for just this type of debate. The wanted a very very limited government and they felt that a Bill of Rights might be misinterpeted as giving the people ONLY those rights. Thier intention was just the opposite---they wanted the constitution to be read as "any right not EXPRESSLY given to the governnent was retained by the people". They would laugh at folks who now try to claim that the second amendment clause is limited to just militias or for hunting. Remember the context. These guys had just overthrown an overbearing government. They wanted citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from any threat---including the government.

That is one interpretation of the language. You can find experts that can argue effectively for both sides. I happen to disagree with you. Why is it that while people want to argue what the forefathers meant you completely ignore the other quote from whom many would consider out most important fore father. The one the lead us in the fight against tyranny. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite..." Hmmmm that would be a militia right?

(03-29-2018 01:55 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.
We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not leave it out, just realize that per the rules of English grammar, "well-regulated" applies to the militia and not to the right to bear arms, which very clearly "shall not be infringed."

Correct. In fact, the truth is many of the founding fathers didnt want the Bill of Rights attached the constitution for just this type of debate. The wanted a very very limited government and they felt that a Bill of Rights might be misinterpeted as giving the people ONLY those rights. Thier intention was just the opposite---they wanted the constitution to be read as "any right not EXPRESSLY given to the governnent was retained by the people". They would laugh at folks who now try to claim that the second amendment clause is limited to just militias or for hunting. Remember the context. These guys had just overthrown an overbearing government. They wanted citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from any threat---including the government.

That is one interpretation of the language. You can find experts that can argue effectively for both sides. I happen to disagree with you. Why is it that while people want to argue what the forefathers meant you completely ignore the other quote from whom many would consider out most important fore father. The one the lead us in the fight against tyranny. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite..." Hmmmm that would be a militia right?

Why the ellipses?

As I understand it, Washington was arguing to ensure domestic manufacturing of arms to avoid the supply issues from the war a few years earlier.

Again, full quote for context:

Quote:“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

(03-29-2018 08:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...the problem many have is with 'gun free' zones which keep 'the proper authorities' from having guns in those zones...

Wait...what? Cops (and SRO's) aren't allowed to have guns in gun free zones?

Quote:Reflective of the importance of this role is that 60 percent always wear their law enforcement uniforms and almost all (97 percent) carry their guns while providing service to their schools.

Ohio SRO Program - WHAT SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS DO IN SCHOOLS

THIS is what is wrong with this forum and people on it....

First, I tried to agree with you....

Second, I wrote 15 lines that were all relatively pertinent and completely on point to the argument.... and then I made the mistake of unintentionally misrepresenting a relatively meaningless position that I don't personally have, but SOME people do and are INTENTIONALLY misrepresented by those on the other side of that position.

and THAT is the only thing you want to talk about.

You're right. I screwed up on why some people (not me) have problems with gun free zones other than the pretty obvious fact that criminals don't give a damn about rules against carrying guns in no carry zones. (that's MY position on them, but I don't generally have a problem with them)

which means that such regulations are as stupid as every other attempt by the left to 'regulate' against killers.

Thanks for demonstrating why this conversation never goes anywhere. Some would rather argue about trivialities (like whether its a clip or magazine) than deal with the issues. You shouldn't have to be an expert in something to work towards a solution, but you SHOULD have to be willing to accept that being an expert in something only makes you a resource for a solution and not the final word.

(03-29-2018 01:55 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.
We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not leave it out, just realize that per the rules of English grammar, "well-regulated" applies to the militia and not to the right to bear arms, which very clearly "shall not be infringed."

Correct. In fact, the truth is many of the founding fathers didnt want the Bill of Rights attached the constitution for just this type of debate. The wanted a very very limited government and they felt that a Bill of Rights might be misinterpeted as giving the people ONLY those rights. Thier intention was just the opposite---they wanted the constitution to be read as "any right not EXPRESSLY given to the governnent was retained by the people". They would laugh at folks who now try to claim that the second amendment clause is limited to just militias or for hunting. Remember the context. These guys had just overthrown an overbearing government. They wanted citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from any threat---including the government.

That is one interpretation of the language. You can find experts that can argue effectively for both sides. I happen to disagree with you. Why is it that while people want to argue what the forefathers meant you completely ignore the other quote from whom many would consider out most important fore father. The one the lead us in the fight against tyranny. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite..." Hmmmm that would be a militia right?

The enormous thing that cuts across your 'militia' argument (and the concept that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right but help broadly across the 'people') is the Constitution itself.

Name *one* right that has ever been found to be this weird ass construct that the left always throws out there? Just one. Interesting view point (to say the least) that *every* single right in Bill of Rights (aside from the 10th) is in fact an individual right, *but* the 2nd. I mean, where the **** else does a weird ass **** type of 'group right' *ever* come into the Bill of Rights, let alone the *entire* body of rights (including the implied rights of voting, to run for office, and to freely travel), ever come into play?

Short answer: it doesnt. Ever.

Second, cite *any* single portion of the Federalist Papers (or Anti-Federalist Papers) where such a weird ass 'group' right exists? Again, short answer: Never.

Third, cite *any* then-existing state constitution (that is in force in 1781) that creates a 'group' right for arms? Again, short answer: all mention of rights pertaining to bearing arms in existent state constitutions are explicitly individual rights.

Fourth, cite *any* then-existing state constitution (that is in force in 1781) that creates *any* weird ass 'group' right for *anything*? Once again, short answer: all mention of rights in then existent state constitutions are explicitly individual rights.

Finally, in *every*single instance where the 'people' is mentioned both in the main body of the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights, *every* single instance refers to individual rights.

But apparently, with *all* these source completely and absolutely bereft of *any* mention of some weird godforsaken 'group' right in any fing context, you seemingly think that the *only* place in all these base source materials that a weird as **** 'group' right exists, and the *only* place where where the term 'people' should *not* refer to an individual right in the entire body of the Constitution is magically in the 2nd Amendment.

Got it. Makes crystal clear sense to me. [sarcasm off] Yep, the liberal methodology of interpretation really works well to opine that the 2nd Amendment is a 'group' right of militias as opposed to an individual right. Especially given *all* the massive support in the base material *and* the primary sources. I mean, why let all that base material and primary source material stand in the way of a uniquely odd and strange 'group' right.... [sarcasm *really* off]

(03-29-2018 02:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 08:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...the problem many have is with 'gun free' zones which keep 'the proper authorities' from having guns in those zones...

Wait...what? Cops (and SRO's) aren't allowed to have guns in gun free zones?

Quote:Reflective of the importance of this role is that 60 percent always wear their law enforcement uniforms and almost all (97 percent) carry their guns while providing service to their schools.

Ohio SRO Program - WHAT SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS DO IN SCHOOLS

THIS is what is wrong with this forum and people on it....

First, I tried to agree with you....

Second, I wrote 15 lines that were all relatively pertinent and completely on point to the argument.... and then I made the mistake of unintentionally misrepresenting a relatively meaningless position that I don't personally have, but SOME people do and are INTENTIONALLY misrepresented by those on the other side of that position.

and THAT is the only thing you want to talk about.

You're right. I screwed up on why some people (not me) have problems with gun free zones other than the pretty obvious fact that criminals don't give a damn about rules against carrying guns in no carry zones. (that's MY position on them, but I don't generally have a problem with them)

which means that such regulations are as stupid as every other attempt by the left to 'regulate' against killers.

Thanks for demonstrating why this conversation never goes anywhere. Some would rather argue about trivialities (like whether its a clip or magazine) than deal with the issues. You shouldn't have to be an expert in something to work towards a solution, but you SHOULD have to be willing to accept that being an expert in something only makes you a resource for a solution and not the final word.

(03-29-2018 01:55 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:49 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  That's BS, and quite easy BS to call you on.
We've been fighting wars for the last 50+ years against often civilian-led forces carrying AK-47s, etc and not handily winning anything... with the world's best trained military. The tactical advantage is always on the side of the defender. Our populace's capability to own firearms also acts as a deterrent to foreign governments interested in putting troops on American soil. To state otherwise is absolute BS.

Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not leave it out, just realize that per the rules of English grammar, "well-regulated" applies to the militia and not to the right to bear arms, which very clearly "shall not be infringed."

Correct. In fact, the truth is many of the founding fathers didnt want the Bill of Rights attached the constitution for just this type of debate. The wanted a very very limited government and they felt that a Bill of Rights might be misinterpeted as giving the people ONLY those rights. Thier intention was just the opposite---they wanted the constitution to be read as "any right not EXPRESSLY given to the governnent was retained by the people". They would laugh at folks who now try to claim that the second amendment clause is limited to just militias or for hunting. Remember the context. These guys had just overthrown an overbearing government. They wanted citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from any threat---including the government.

That is one interpretation of the language. You can find experts that can argue effectively for both sides. I happen to disagree with you. Why is it that while people want to argue what the forefathers meant you completely ignore the other quote from whom many would consider out most important fore father. The one the lead us in the fight against tyranny. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite..." Hmmmm that would be a militia right?

You don't form a militia from people drinking soy milk. You form a militia from people that bear arms. You also don't infringe upon people's rights to bear arms in case you need a militia. If you want context for the Second Amendment read the federalist papers.

(03-29-2018 02:27 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 01:55 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not leave it out, just realize that per the rules of English grammar, "well-regulated" applies to the militia and not to the right to bear arms, which very clearly "shall not be infringed."

Correct. In fact, the truth is many of the founding fathers didnt want the Bill of Rights attached the constitution for just this type of debate. The wanted a very very limited government and they felt that a Bill of Rights might be misinterpeted as giving the people ONLY those rights. Thier intention was just the opposite---they wanted the constitution to be read as "any right not EXPRESSLY given to the governnent was retained by the people". They would laugh at folks who now try to claim that the second amendment clause is limited to just militias or for hunting. Remember the context. These guys had just overthrown an overbearing government. They wanted citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from any threat---including the government.

That is one interpretation of the language. You can find experts that can argue effectively for both sides. I happen to disagree with you. Why is it that while people want to argue what the forefathers meant you completely ignore the other quote from whom many would consider out most important fore father. The one the lead us in the fight against tyranny. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite..." Hmmmm that would be a militia right?

Why the ellipses?

As I understand it, Washington was arguing to ensure domestic manufacturing of arms to avoid the supply issues from the war a few years earlier.

Again, full quote for context:

Quote:“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

Because I had already previously quoted the entire thing and everyone ignored it and went on about how they interpret the 2nd amendment. The rest of the quote only serves to strengthen my point.

(03-29-2018 03:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 01:55 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Advantage goes to an trained, entrenched defender. "Disciplined troops with well-trained and experienced leaders will be able to make tactical decisions that may render a given defender’s advantages moot, or significantly enhance the defensive battle plan (depending on which side they fall)." I would also add to that a unit that can communicate well, usually comes with training, is going to have an advantage
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
The devil is in the details. You guys always want to leave out the well regulated part of the 2nd.

Not leave it out, just realize that per the rules of English grammar, "well-regulated" applies to the militia and not to the right to bear arms, which very clearly "shall not be infringed."

Correct. In fact, the truth is many of the founding fathers didnt want the Bill of Rights attached the constitution for just this type of debate. The wanted a very very limited government and they felt that a Bill of Rights might be misinterpeted as giving the people ONLY those rights. Thier intention was just the opposite---they wanted the constitution to be read as "any right not EXPRESSLY given to the governnent was retained by the people". They would laugh at folks who now try to claim that the second amendment clause is limited to just militias or for hunting. Remember the context. These guys had just overthrown an overbearing government. They wanted citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from any threat---including the government.

That is one interpretation of the language. You can find experts that can argue effectively for both sides. I happen to disagree with you. Why is it that while people want to argue what the forefathers meant you completely ignore the other quote from whom many would consider out most important fore father. The one the lead us in the fight against tyranny. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite..." Hmmmm that would be a militia right?

You don't form a militia from people drinking soy milk. You form a militia from people that bear arms. You also don't infringe upon people's rights to bear arms in case you need a militia. If you want context for the Second Amendment read the federalist papers.

The militia, even as bare boned, as laid out by Madison in Federalist No. 46 does not exist.