COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Mark Rippetoe]

So far, COVID-19 has killed 0.0292% of the population of the earth. This isn't even a pimple on a pandemic's ass -- 2.28 million of the 56 million that died anyway.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Ok folks, but especially you Jenni and VNV.

You want a high rate of fire? You want something that wasn't a powder burner?

TA DA!

I present, for your consideration, the Girardoni repeating air rifle. Girardoni air rifle - Wikipedia

A 20 shot magazine, available in .46 and .51 calibers and with a range of 125 yards on a single pumped up charge of the air reservoir. No bayonet lug, so it wouldn't be considered an assault weapon. And yet, the Founders didn't bother to put a codicil to the 2nd Amendment to moderate the horror of this relentless killer.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Jenni mentioned it earlier. I like the point about making all the amendments conform to the technology in existence at the time of their adoption.

[cmdrfunk]

Bank of America Secretly Flagged Purchase History of Customers and Sent the Data to Feds


Chase Bank Tries to Cancel Covfefe Coffee, Won’t Process Payments for Pro-Trump Coffee Brand

Just start your own bank.


These people deserve to die.

[Barry Charles]

Jenni mentioned it earlier. I like the point about making all the amendments conform to the technology in existence at the time of their adoption.

Just imagine a new constitution being written in the form of statutory law.

Caliber, schmaliber. It would require gender neutrality, specification for disabilities, and be sustainably made of organic materials.

“A well regulated militia....

[Gilead]

The new strains thing is pure bullshit. Don't even waste your time exploring this, it will go away in a month or two.

Not here

[Jenni]

Not only are you using a line written by Jefferson that never made it into the final draft of the VA constitution it was written for, you aren't even using the later draft that explicitly does impose limits on bearing arms. "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]". So does that mean you're fine with only having access to arms on your property or housing since Jefferson wrote it?

I never made the claim that the line made it into the doc exactly as I gave it. It was his first draft and I happen to prefer the force, the passion it evokes. Did you read the stuff, by the way, or did you Google and cherry pick what seemed to fit your argument? It looks to me like you looked up a couple of anti-gun pages and are parroting their arguments with no knowledge of the primary sources. Which would be a shame. There were three drafts of the document. None of them use your word choice of "only". You'd think after three drafts if he meant the line to mean "only on your own lands" he'd have said it. I see no problem with the addition of the line. You want people to read it your way- that people should only be allowed to have weapons on their property. That's probably how the anti-gun folks put it on their websites. But in historical context we see evidence for why such a line might be a good idea considering that back then Colonial militiamen often had to store weapons at an armory or powder house. Making sure people weren't just given the technical right to own weapons, but to also had the right to have them in their homes was a decent idea. Fresh on the heels of Gage's warrantless searches for guns and ammo, I imagine Jefferson and company had a very different idea in mind than you do.

Bribery corrupts them.
Yes, it does. So does the soft smothering of safety when you hand over your rights to those who would be bribed. I disagree that the implication of changing the document after a period of time naturally leads to the giving up of arms. I think that is something that has been pushed and popularized by people who have an agenda it serves. The public has let that happen because they are safe and warm in their beds right now. They don't remember what it's like to need those weapons. That doesn't make it right. Popular doesn't make it right. Maybe that's why in the end they chose to make it difficult to amend the thing.



A neat video on the Girardoni for those interested. Girardoni Air Gun (original 1780 example) - YouTube

I agree with you. Since some people seem to believe the 2nd Amendment is quite limited, even thought the words "shall not be infringed" are quite encompassing, I wanted to show how different life would be if the Bill of Rights only applied to things in common use at the time. Although radio, television and the internet didn't exist then and modern surveillance methods are substantial more intrusive than in the late 18th century, I have never heard any sane person argue that the 1st and 4th Amendments only apply to 18th century technology.

My apologies for assuming the worst of you. In my defense, it's usually a safe bet when dealing with people. lol I like the thought experiment too. Sadly, I can see certain people making that very argument as they download our data and sell it off.

[wal]

Not true. If they meant it to only cover black powder guns they would have said so.

I am not a US citizen so I can't pretend to know what was in the minds of those men when they put together your constitution and the amendments that were added. Your own courts over and over have argued about the definition, such as does the amendment allow individual citizens to be armed or "well regulated militias"? That is does the amendment protect private individuals to own a firearm or does it mean a collective right i.e. a militia? The debate will continue and individual states will get more control over gun laws so that semi auto rifles and high capacity cartridges will be banned or taxed out of existence. Biden is already moving to sidestep your 2nd amendment. Your NFA 1934 regulates somewhat as to what is not allowed under the 2nd Amendment, such as machine guns and short barrels, suppressors etc. That is about as much as I know, my opinion is your 2nd amendment rights are going to be tested, I could be wrong,but it has happened here, your next, though perhaps it will be more difficult.

So called assault weapons existed at the time. Even da Vinci had designed a rapid fire weapon in 1481. The Ferguson rifle, used in the Revolution, was a breech loader rather than muzzle and could fire up to 7 rounds per minute. They also had rifles with large magazine capacities. The Girandoni, for example, had a magazine capacity of 19 rounds each of which was more powerful than the muskets of the day.

I would further ask that any of you who wish to assert the silly assumption that they only meant for the right to bear arms to apply to weapons such as black powder guns read some of the writings of the Founding Fathers. I'd like to see the quotes that make you think this. Frankly, I find the words "shall not be infringed" to be quite clear. These were not careless men who slapped down shit on a sheet of paper and called it a day. Jefferson was quite clear when he said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". It is our right and duty to be both armed and disciplined and we have neglected that duty dreadfully.

It is more than the "free" man, (covid has tested that), and your duty to be armed, it is whether you folk are disciplined, it does not matter how many guns a nation has, the big question is are you folk disciplined.?

Yes, but of course the home invaders will not have sold their weapons and will know that you have, the good law-abiding, safety conscious citizen that you are.

They already do know and some folk have been prosecuted for extreme violence on a home invader. You can defend yourself and your property, but it must be within reason and should the intruder be killed, better be prepared to go to court.

“If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." Exodus 22v2-3

[Buddy Rich]

A reporter in Rochester wrote an excellent article about the 9 yr old who got pepper sprayed. All kinds of things have surfaced about it, including some disturbing videos (that the news of course didn’t report) where Elba (the mother) is being verbally abusive and threatening. If you’d like to read it here it is. What he refers to in the beginning is what she screamed at cars passing by.

bob lonsberry dot com

[Mark Rippetoe]

They already do know and some folk have been prosecuted for extreme violence on a home invader. You can defend yourself and your property, but it must be within reason and should the intruder be killed, better be prepared to go to court.

Depends on the jurisdiction, wal. If I shoot a guy back out into my yard in Texas as he's crawling through my window with a gun, I will almost certainly not have to go downtown, or even talk to the grand jury. If some poor bastard in California does the same thing, well, he lives in the wrong jurisdiction.