Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[LWC55]

There's been no leftists academia interpretation here. Some solid legal professional interpretation though.

Let's also not pretend that those that would like more gun regulations are some sort of monolith. There are many people, both Republicans and Democrats, who would like to see expanded background checks and nothing more. There are many people who would like to see an imposition of waiting periods and nothing more. There are also many people who would like to see a return of the 1994 assualt weapons ban, but I'm sure they are many fewer than my first two examples.

Give your fellow Americans more credit. They aren't all in on one side or the other, and that gradient is where the discussion has to happen.

I was referring to the RBG interpretation. About as leftest academia as it gets. In case you aren’t sure. If you agree with RBG, you don’t support the second amendment

 

[88man]

Things are getting pretty crazy in this country lately and all we are worried about is keeping public lands public. Maybe we are the crazy ones. Just kidding

 

[Shangobango]

No, I didn't "conveniently leave it off". Why though is it always okay to leave out the "well regulated militia" part? If the purpose of the 2A was to provide for a well regulated militia, then 2A advocates should have no issue with gun registration. How else would they be called up to serve in the "well regulated militia?"

Don't get too upset Shangobango, I'm just throwing it out there.

You are right about leaving the “ well regulated militia” part off. I am guilty of that myself so I apologize for calling you out for doing the same thing I do, just in reverse. I thought about it while driving around at work afterwards.

As far as the well regulated militia, it is my view that the militia was meant to be a militia not controlled by the government.

That would disqualify the Military reserves and National Gaurd from being the “militia” and also negate the idea of registering weapons with government in regards to serving in the militia.

I have had time to reflect on my tendency to get my panties in a wad over this issue and will try to do better. It is something I am passionate about so we’ll see how that works. No promises lol.

 

[azelkhntr]

Sorry, but you don't get to just point a firearm at a crowd, even if you're standing on your own property. That's not how things work.

Sorry; but yes you do get to point a firearm at people in that situation. That's what happens when the police don't or wont do their job. You don't want a gun pointed at you then don't be a criminal. Easy peasy.

 

[azelkhntr]

You are right about leaving the “ well regulated militia” part off. I am guilty of that myself so I apologize for calling you out for doing the same thing I do, just in reverse. I thought about it while driving around at work afterwards.

As far as the well regulated militia, it is my view that the militia was meant to be a militia not controlled by the government.

That would disqualify the Military reserves and National Gaurd from being the “militia” and also negate the idea of registering weapons with government in regards to serving in the militia.

I have had time to reflect on my tendency to get my panties in a wad over this issue and will try to do better. It is something I am passionate about so we’ll see how that works. No promises lol.

The "well regulated" clause means that all State militia (freemen) should be similarly equipped and trained following the poor performance of irregulars during the Am. Revolution and the War of 1812. Militia are the free men of the society who are called upon in time of national or international conflict. The Congress was not terribly interested in burdening the nation with the cost and support of a standing army. We were rightly leery of such at that time. The reserves and NG are clearly State well regulated militia, to claim otherwise is nonsense.

 

[406dn]

Sorry; but yes you do get to point a firearm at people in that situation. That's what happens when the police don't or wont do their job. You don't want a gun pointed at you then don't be a criminal. Easy peasy.

By that logic, whenever a guy pulls a gun on you,,,you not he is the criminal. I learned something new today, then again maybe not.

Sorry no one can just stand around pointing guns at people that piss them off.

 

[azelkhntr]

By that logic, whenever a guy pulls a gun on you,,,you not he is the criminal. I learned something new today, then again maybe not.

Sorry no one can just stand around pointing guns at people that piss them off.

Dude you clearly haven't seen the video of this incident. That couple was afraid for their very lives and property and rightly so. She's scared out of her mind. And yes I can indeed point a weapon at someone who pisses me off. It acts a shield then for both parties. Its not as if I haven't before or wont in the future.

 

[Shangobango]

The "well regulated" clause means that all State militia (freemen) should be similarly equipped and trained following the poor performance of irregulars during the Am. Revolution and the War of 1812. Militia are the free men of the society who are called upon in time of national or international conflict. The Congress was not terribly interested in burdening the nation with the cost and support of a standing army. We were rightly leery of such at that time. The reserves and NG are clearly State well regulated militia, to claim otherwise is nonsense.

I disagree that well regulated militia refers to State regulated militia’s. But of course they do not specify who does the regulating.

What is the point of adding that “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” if the State is to do the regulating? Is it that the State doesn’t have to provide the weapons? If that is the case that once again disqualifies the NG and reserves.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Anyone who stands there with their finger on the trigger, pointing their firearm at someone does not likely have the mental capacity to own and properly use a firearm for self defense.

Pointing a firearm at someone is considered brandishing and or assault in many states and can often be charged a felony. Good way to lose your 2A rights.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Dude you clearly haven't seen the video of this incident. That couple was afraid for their very lives and property and rightly so. She's scared out of her mind. And yes I can indeed point a weapon at someone who pisses me off. It acts a shield then for both parties. Its not as if I haven't before or wont in the future.

If they truly were "afraid for their lives," their tactics suck. LOL

 

[mariano742]

ahhh yes. the choice between the lesser of two weevils

 

[MTLabrador]

Anyone who stands there with their finger on the trigger, pointing their firearm at someone does not likely have the mental capacity to own and properly use a firearm for self defense.

Pointing a firearm at someone is considered brandishing and or assault in many states and can often be charged a felony. Good way to lose your 2A rights.

And anyone who thinks they’re allowed to shoot someone for destroying property needs to be comfortable with spending time in orange.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

And anyone who thinks they’re allowed to shoot someone for destroying property needs to be comfortable with spending time in orange.

I received a very uneducated lecture on the Castle Doctrine on Facebook yesterday in reference to this event.

 

[rwc101]

Dude you clearly haven't seen the video of this incident. That couple was afraid for their very lives and property and rightly so. She's scared out of her mind. And yes I can indeed point a weapon at someone who pisses me off. It acts a shield then for both parties. Its not as if I haven't before or wont in the future.

People that are afraid for their life seldom leave a defensible structure to stand out in the open exposed to attackers.

 

[Little Big Man MT Chris]

The husband and wife that pointed the guns at people we’re on private property behind a locked fence the protesters tore down and kicked down the fence Which wasn’t there’s , And we’re making threats towards people who live there on there way to the objective, when they were the ones trespassing on private property any of us go hunting and just go tear down somebody’s fence and go traipsing across their property and threaten them because we want access Some landlocked BLM or whatever we think we have a right to get to elk or deer or whatever we think we want , we’re probably going to get a gun pointed at us or worse. I support the homeowners , they could go after them for criminal trespass, I just don’t agree with destroying other peoples things and making threats to innocent people minding their own business at their home

 

[Deleted member 20812]

they could go after them for criminal trespass

Sure could. And if the lady sneezes and torches off a round through someone she could go to prison for manslaughter.

 

[Little Big Man MT Chris]

Sure could. And if the lady sneezes and torches off a round through someone she could go to prison for manslaughter.

But she didn’t and there’s all kinds of what if’s That never happen, And the rabbit hole of possibilities are endless which just brings it back around to the old saying if you go looking for trouble odds are you’re probably gonna find it and the protesters went looking for trouble and we’re looking to make trouble

 

[Nick87]

Sure could. And if the lady sneezes and torches off a round through someone she could go to prison for manslaughter.

I understand but at what point during that instance do you take a mob beating or pull the gun to stop them 10ft away? 3 ft? 20 ft? With adrenaline flowing no less. Real question not being sarcastic.

 

[406dn]

Dude you clearly haven't seen the video of this incident. That couple was afraid for their very lives and property and rightly so. She's scared out of her mind. And yes I can indeed point a weapon at someone who pisses me off. It acts a shield then for both parties. Its not as if I haven't before or wont in the future.

How am I not surprised.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Pointing a gun at someone, particularly with your finger on the trigger, is generally frowned upon by the criminal and civil courts unless one has met the threshold for using lethal force. Continue with the mental gymnastics all you want. My guess is they'll face some sort of liability for this. Whether or not it was worth it is up for them to decide. They could have just as easily followed all of the firearms safety rules and defended themselves in a perfectly legal manner.

Carry on, back to online ammo sales.