Northcountryman

Heres the exact wording of the 2nd A. in the Constitution: The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What do these 27 words mean exactly? Of course, the Framers had no way of seeing 245 years into the future--and how could they? Thus, the wording of this inalienable right, as written in 1791, may have a very different meaning when applied to the context of the times year 2021--or maybe not? Back then, militias were viewed as groups of local citizens that would band together ad hoc in order to defend themselves and their property from a myriad of threats; for example, threats including Indian attacks, an invasion force ,etc. but also, from oppression by the govt itself. Circa late 1700's, many people had a legitimate fear that the government would oppress the mass through the use of a federalized standing army--and , of course, history supported such sentiments. Considering this, I do believe that the ORIGINAL intent of the Framers when writing the 2nd was to provide a check on government power and authority by the citizenry; but it is this "check" still necessary today? Some Liberal Scholars -- notorious for favoring a more loosely defined textual interpretation of the Constitution-- claim that the 2nd A. NEVER guaranteed individual gun ownership by the citizenry, citing the word " Militia" in the document. Their position is that the 2nd A. only applies to the right of individual units equivalent to the contemporary National Guard to have guns and that it says nothing about individual gun ownership ; nor does it guarantee the right to have and use weapons for hunting purposes!!

Cool , thank you , I’ll check it out

Which part am I over thinking , the Grouse is a Troll part ? Or calling you on the Dnesh D’Souza has no credibility assertion? Again, I’ll ask you —where did you hear about the D’Souza stuff ? I’m interested in that part of your earlier post and if you can post a link or something , would be great, really. And Finally , you’re right - Grouse is no Troll and neither are you and I but earlier , you said that he was — come on Man !!

Oh wait , I missed one point that you made that i need to reply to and expound upon : so your position is that the credibility of someone espousing an opinion trumps that of one testifying about an incident that occurred and the facts surround it in a court of law ? Really? Think about your position for a second — I think , in fact , it should be the opposite shouldn’t it? Also , you say — with conviction — that Grouse is a troll ; let me turn it around on you ( because you said this to him before In Another post) —probe it !!

Why doesn’t the analogy work ? Your position was D’Souza can’t be right because of the character problems he had . The way i see it , the prostitute analogy seems very fitting here because many Would feel that her character is at issue and therefore , anything she testifies to is not creditable . So what If D’Souza did what you claimed ? It has nothing to do with his gun control beliefs as denoted in the video , correct ? Also , what does the quotation from the judge have to do with anything ? I was hoping you were going to provide proof pertaining to your assertions that he attacked kids and the forced resignation thing .

I've never heard of this controversy with Dinesh D' Souza--are you sure? Can you tell me where you learned about these transgressions? Also, I'm not saying hes right or wrong here , but , I would careful about how you frame an argument or rebuttal. In your reply, you appear to be suggesting that because of these transgressions, anything he says should be just summarily rejected as he is now discredited. Is that so? Let me use an analogy here to refute your argument: Do you think that a Prostitute can be raped? She breaks the law all the time and--I'm sure--has at some point in her past , has probably lied, stolen , used illicit drugs--maybe has even committed murder; thus, is her testimony creditable?

Grouse, I agree with you if the purchase involves a rifle or shotgun, but a handgun or AR? I respectfully disagree. Now, you said earlier that you agree with a "1 background check only" policy in regards to firearms purchase and when after that , youre good. When if they build into that background check a waiting period so that after the check is completed (and it would be a quite thorough check , mind you), you can come pick up your gun? Like IDK, maybe 3 days? I think thats the standard. Would you agree with that?

And what would the penalty be for the Shooter?

So if someone wanted to purchase an AR-15 in NY, would they be able to?

Yes, that is true and I agree, but what about in other states where you can walk in , apply, and walk out same day with your handgun ( at least, I believe you can in some of the hard-core conservative southern states)? I dont agree with that.

Japan has very restrictive gun control laws in place ; I don’t even think a citizen can legally obtain an assault trifle there, can they ?

I like it , but I age. To ask you : when you say you believe that the avg citizen should be allowed to own the same weapons as those Used in the military , does that include weapons like the M -60 or a 50 cal ? A bazooka perhaps ? Or are those what you mean by crew weapons ?

After reading the current threads on gun control, I wanted to take a different approach to this discussion and talk about Gun control itself. I know that the vast majority of members on here are strongly pro 2nd amendment ; moreover, you fear that any relinquishment of rights to purchase/own/maintain firearms inexorably will lead to the revocation of this constituional right. What I'm wondering is, are there pure and strict constitutionalists here who believe that NO gun control laws or measures are constitutional and thus, ANYONE who is an American citizen should be able to purchase and own a firearm (of requisite age , of course)no matter what? Also, citizens should be able to purchase and own ANY firearm available on the market, military/assault weapons, even bazookas and grenades, if they so choose and can afford it? Or, conversely, are you a strict gun control advocate that believes guns should not be allowed to be owned by the citizenry and the 2nd A. should be repealed ( Im pretty sure that nobody on here falls within this category, but had to put it out there anyway in order to frame the discussion effectively!). As for me, I'm a firm believer in 2nd A. rights but I'm more moderate in terms of what level of gun control measures I will tolerate. Heres a summary that hopefully, pretty much elucidates my beliefs in regards to the 2nd A. and Gun control: Right to purchase/own and utilize rifles/shotguns and any other weapons primarily intended for recreational use/pursuits related to hunting should be unfettered. Right to purchase handguns permitted with successful completion of a basic background check and an approved handgun safety course; subsequent to this, applicant then should be eligible to receive their firearm after a reasonable waiting (i.e., cooling off) period . Right to purchase a military/assault rifle (AR-15s, and other automatic weapons that can still reasonably be considered a hunting weapon)should be permitted after successful completion of a more thorough background check and also includes a psych eval ; additionally, a longer cooling off period should be required (length and duration IDK, but longer than 3 days , I would think!!). Right to purchase anything else that can be classified as military and not included in the aforementioned points , such as bazookas, grenades, 50 cal machine guns, etc.(for want of a better term, serious military hardware) should not be allowed mostly (exemptions can apply, of course in certain situations). What do you think?

Definitely!!

Welcome !!

I may not agree with everything he says , but that , truly is absurd.

So this is like the 10th post (at least) where someone has mentioned this Papist guy; must have pre-dated me cuz I've never heard of him or have seen his posts. Who the hell is Papist? Sounds like he was a hard-core Conservative dude that posted alot in the Political section, yes?

Beautiful!! Love it!!

Never been to Echo lake ( always wanted to though!) , but Alder Lake is awesome, as is the Vernooy Kill. I know you can camp at Alder Lake w/ no hassle whatsoever; not sure about the Vernooy Kill , but I think you can also. Both waters hold Trout but in alder, youre more likely to catch Bullhead.

Yeah , that makes sense about the chestnut — I figured it’s range would only extend mostly into southern NY , just like the black walnut . So are you saying Elk were in the adirondacks historically , but not as numerous as in lowland areas of NY ?

Fly or spin? It does make a difference!!

Was he ? I saw he had an Arabic name —how do you know ?

Yeah , with the shootings in CO— that’s 2 now in the past several days— there’s gonna be a lot of renewed clamoring for banning of assault rifles.

Yup, me too, here we go again.

Quiote a diverse array of wildlife pics there!! Very nice!! Great pic of the Fox btw, very clear.