I'm going to keep it simple

[solo1]

All of this latest stuff about more gun control has me thinking. The amount of total ignorance, of many as to why the 2nd Amendment was created by Madison and explained by him in the 46th Federalist Papers, is disappointing.  Couple that with the latest Supreme Court decision and I have little faith in our socalled political leaders.   They totally ignore the judicial branch of our Republic.

So I'll keep it simple, just like our founders did with England.  No further words necessary.

[da prez]

Guns can be outlawed. Just ask all the gang members to turn  in all illegal weapons. Do these MORONS really think that the problem will be solved. The Florida gun was legally bought. What would be done if it was a black market gun. I know , stop all the illegal weapon sales.

                       da prez

[Crackerborn]

 
The KISS principle should be understood by political hacks that need to be returned to private life without their grandiose pensions.

[Roadog]

Guns can be outlawed. Just ask all the gang members to turn  in all illegal weapons. Do these MORONS really think that the problem will be solved. The Florida gun was legally bought. What would be done if it was a black market gun. I know , stop all the illegal weapon sales.

                       da prez

These people know and understand very well that these killings have ZERO to do with the gun !  They know very well that it is people pulling the triggers ! They know very well that criminals DO NOT obey the laws ! They know and understand very well that a total disarm of the 'people' will NOT stop gun violence !  It isnt about gun violence , they dont care about how many are murdered in chicago or they would have done something about it ! Same with baltimore or new york or any of the other gang /criminal infested city's in America .  IT'S ALL about the disarming of the 'people'  !  They try to use every one of these massacres to push for 'more' gun control ! I've said this before and I will say it again...gun control has ZERO to do with guns and EVERYTHING to do with control ! 

Ride safe
Roadog

[98valk]

we are now seeing the recent voting age groups who have not be taught about this country, bill of rights, founding fathers, etc., by the liberal agenda govt., controlled school systems.  They were taught to hate this country, its bad and evil how it became powerful. they are taught to embrace zero country boarders and one world govt. America is doomed, most likely gone as we know and love it in the next 20-30 yrs, maybe sooner.  All we can do is prepare for the worst and ask for God's protection and guidance.

 Psalm 57:1   
Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me, For my soul takes refuge in You; And in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge Until destruction passes by.

 Psalm 91:4   
He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark.

Deuteronomy 32:11   
"Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, That hovers over its young, He spread His wings and caught them, He carried them on His pinions.

[Skinhead]

If gun purchase age goes to 21, ok, as long as voting age does as well.  If you are too irresponsible to own a gun, you are too irresponsible to vote.  I believe more damage to society can be done with the vote than the gun.

[Serk]

I agree with you. I fly my sentiment on my flesh, all these arguments about banning, restricting, whatever are purely academic, if they want my standard capacity magazines, semi-auto modern sporting rifles or anything else, well.....

[98valk]

If gun purchase age goes to 21, ok, as long as voting age does as well.  If you are too irresponsible to own a gun, you are too irresponsible to vote.  I believe more damage to society can be done with the vote than the gun.

the draft or allowed to join military should go back to 21 also.

The long debate over lowering the voting age in America from 21 to 18 began during World War II and intensified during the Vietnam War, when young men denied the right to vote were being conscripted to fight for their country. In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections, but not at the state and local level. Amid increasing support for a Constitutional amendment, Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971; the states promptly ratified it, and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law that July.

The 26th Amendment: “Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote”

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt lowered the minimum age for the military draft age to 18, at a time when the minimum voting age (as determined by the individual states) had historically been 21. “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote” became a common slogan for a youth voting rights movement, and in 1943 Georgia became the first state to lower its voting age in state and local elections from 21 to 18.

more to read, actually goes back to Eisenhower
https://www.history.com/topics/the-26th-amendment

[Jess from VA]

As far as voting, I think 21 is a good idea.  (The draft is long gone, so no one is being forced to serve.)

This has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with snowflakes fresh out of (or still serving in) leftist training academies.

I used to be against the Electoral College.... but not anymore.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though, it appears that our Governing Elite is now at the point where it is simply unable to reverse anything that has gone before.  No matter how stupid or ridiculous it is.   

[MarkT]

Unfortunately the maturity level needed to be cannon fodder is less than that needed to vote responsibly.  The military doesn't want mature conscripts.  They don't need their commands questioned but followed without thinking about it. OTOH, some thought SHOULD be applied to your vote.

[phideux]

As far as voting, I think 21 is a good idea.  (The draft is long gone, so no one is being forced to serve.)

This has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with snowflakes fresh out of (or still serving in) leftist training academies.

I used to be against the Electoral College.... but not anymore.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though, it appears that our Governing Elite is now at the point where it is simply unable to reverse anything that has gone before.  No matter how stupid or ridiculous it is.   

Personally, I don't care if the voting age is 18 or 21, but I think voting ought to be restricted to taxpaying citizens. If you aren't supporting the government, you shouldn't have a say as to who is in the government.

[The emperor has no clothes]

As far as voting, I think 21 is a good idea.  (The draft is long gone, so no one is being forced to serve.)

This has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with snowflakes fresh out of (or still serving in) leftist training academies.

I used to be against the Electoral College.... but not anymore.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though, it appears that our Governing Elite is now at the point where it is simply unable to reverse anything that has gone before.  No matter how stupid or ridiculous it is.   

Personally, I don't care if the voting age is 18 or 21, but I think voting ought to be restricted to taxpaying citizens. If you aren't supporting the government, you shouldn't have a say as to who is in the government.

Wouldn’t that remove most retirees from the voting polls ?

[solo1]

I still pay taxes, all retirees do, gas,property,sales, hidden, etc.  Besides, if they don't but worked all of their life, they deserve to vote. Asinine thought.

[Smokinjoe-VRCCDS#0005]

In 1776, the British demanded we surrender our weapons.

 We shot them.

[bludragon]

End of argument, awesome.

[Oss]

I saw Gavin either removed his post or Adm did it for him so I deleted mine as well.

But I will say this, I really, really enjoy this international vrcc family and whenever I am with members riding, eating, telling stories whatever I have a good time.  Where else can we meet so many interesting people and share our love of this motorcycle?  (And get to eat pie and help worthy causes)

So please folks, lets do what we can to make this place non toxic to each other and a welcoming place for new folks who discover the Valkyrie and want to meet other Valk owners

Oss

[scooperhsd]

Mark - I don't think you understand today's military. As a former naval officer - I DO NOT want people who don't have a head on their shoulders - that's just going to get all of us killed quicker. I CAN appreciate "in the moment ' do this right now, no questions asked'" in the appropriate circumstances. Certainly afloat this applies. Even grunts / infantry can't just be grunts any more - just  to operate some of your tools and weapons correctly requires significant training.

[solo1]

Mark, I belong to the US Army Association.  A former Lt. Colonel who was a CO for a Battalion in Korea (Post war) enrolled me and other Korean War Vets.

I take exception because reading the Army mag, I am amazed at how much the present Army private needs to know and do with the present state of highly technical warfighting that the US Army deploys.  The Army has a big problem finding  qualified volunteers to train and fulfill their fighting needs.  

Todays Army is nothing like the Army that I was in 1952-4.  

Don't ever confuse discipline and obedience to an order as  plain stupidity on the part of the soldier..  The Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard are not democracies, that wouldn't work. All depend on knowledgeable non coms and officers to further their warfighting tasks.

BTW, warfighting is the latest buzzword in the Army.

[Jess from VA]

After I had 5 years in the USAF, they decided I needed to go to Squadron Officer School (back at my first base, Maxwell AFB) in residence.  I complained that I had already completed SOS by correspondence with a 97%.  I was told that was not the same thing as attending in person.  So I went.  And they were right, it was not the same thing as correspondence, it was far far worse (think Hitler Youth and School Solution only with no independent thinking allowed for Jr USAF officers).  I'm pushing 40, and most of my classmates are pushing 25.  

In class one day, we were covering the finer points of lawful and unlawful orders (which you disobey at your own risk), and the emphasis was of course to always default to obeying orders, because you were rarely provided all the information and reasons for them known to leadership.  And of course leadership has no obligation to explain orders to your satisfaction for you to follow them.  And rightly so.

So the end of the day, they come up with a very long and detailed scenario where you and a few guys are guarding a remote outpost near the enemy, and a few of your guys are wounded and lying out there exposed in the open in winter weather.  And you have been ordered to stand down and do nothing to start any shooting at all costs.  And so they ask us..... who is going to go out and try to get those wounded to safety and medical treatment?  My (and just a couple other guys) hand shot right up.  

They tried to talk me out of it.... what if this starts a firefight?  But I could not be swayed.

So then they provide the rest of the story.  Unknown to us, we and the enemy are on the brink of nuclear war, and of course trying to retrieve the wounded starts a firefight, with escalation all up and down the front, and nuclear war is started, and the world ends.

I should have known better.   The crappy thing is they took down all the names of the guys who would have disobeyed orders.  So it goes.  (I only got a 92% in residence) (and also got to run about 200 miles, which was a real bonus)

Ya Vol herr oberst.  

[rocketray]

read  Justice Scalia's opinion on the 2nd amendment--the definitive opinion

[The emperor has no clothes]

read  Justice Scalia's opinion on the 2nd amendment--the definitive opinion

Like this ?


The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

[solo1]

That sounds interesting if it is a direct quote without manipulation on the part of the media.
I had the utmost respect for Justice Scalia.  I have the reverse for all media and most politicians.

[Serk]

That sounds interesting if it is a direct quote without manipulation on the part of the media.
I had the utmost respect for Justice Scalia.  I have the reverse for all media and most politicians.

From the text of the Heller SCOTUS case, which Justice Scalia wrote the opinion on, the entire paragraph reads:

  Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

The full ruling can be found here if you'd like some light reading:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[solo1]

Wow! I'll read it later.  Maybe Oss could too.

Meathead's post seems to be partly taken from an article by David Rapeik, a Think tanker and contributor to Huffington, maybe the New York Times and New Yorker.  There definitely is some "editorializing'  in there with quotation marks getting used confusingly.  Still not a case for taking guns.

Your quote of Scalia is right on, tho, Serk.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wow! I'll read it later.  Maybe Oss could too.

Meathead's post seems to be partly taken from an article by David Rapeik, a Think tanker and contributor to Huffington, maybe the New York Times and New Yorker.  There definitely is some "editorializing'  in there with quotation marks getting used confusingly.  Still not a case for taking guns.

Your quote of Scalia is right on, tho, Serk.

The quotation marks in my post are accurate to the best of my knowledge. Basically, Scalia said the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. Many seem to think otherwise.



I don't remember where I copied it. Maybe Wikipedia ? I just knew previously that's what Scalia said, and looked for it.

[Jess from VA]

Just to put things in perspective, none of the bill of rights is without limits.

Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not 1st amendment protected (if there is no fire).

You only have a right to counsel or a jury if facing serious charges.  Etc.

The most limiting thing is the 2d Amend is the word Arms.  No one (studying constitutional history) thinks the Founders meant to include cannon or rockets within that word (the two other commonly used weapons of the era, besides muskets, rifles, pistols, knives, swords, clubs, spears; IE small arms).  You might keep a cannon, but bearing one is another matter entirely.

While it's nowhere near as commonly discussed or litigated as firearms, the fact is that many of the multitude of state and local laws restricting/limiting knives/swords are possibly in violation of the 2d Amend.  Perhaps not from a concealed point of view, but there are plenty of open carry and all kinds of other peculiar prohibitions.  And most of us are much more ignorant of them than firearm laws (which do mostly carry higher penalties).

And as far as I know, not one State concealed carry law has any application at all to knives.

And isn't it interesting that only those countries who have the most restrictive gun control of all (close to disarmament) are those with significant knife crime, which of course they have countered with exceedingly restrictive knife control laws.

[Romeo]

If gun purchase age goes to 21, ok, as long as voting age does as well.  If you are too irresponsible to own a gun, you are too irresponsible to vote.  I believe more damage to society can be done with the vote than the gun.

as well as admission to the armed forces.

[Serk]

Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not 1st amendment protected (if there is no fire).

I can still scream "THEATER!" in a crowded fire though, right?

And as far as I know, not one State concealed carry law has any application at all to knives.

As usual, proud to be a citizen of the Republic of Texas:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/30/en-garde-texas-open-carry-sword-law-takes-effect-friday/619064001/

[Jess from VA]

Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not 1st amendment protected (if there is no fire).

I can still scream "THEATER!" in a crowded fire though, right?

And as far as I know, not one State concealed carry law has any application at all to knives.

As usual, proud to be a citizen of the Republic of Texas:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/30/en-garde-texas-open-carry-sword-law-takes-effect-friday/619064001/

Well hail the open sword carry crowd.  

I'm almost afraid to ask about your new sword.   

In keeping with that plaid dress you like to wear, it will no doubt have to be a Scott's Claymore.  



You probably need to refrain on the bike... it'll get caught in the spokes.

(Note, it took a separate law, no state wants to talk knives in their CC pistol laws.)

And everyone screams in a crowded fire.    

[Serk]

I've got a few others, but my Cold Steel Basket Hilt is my primary blade when I'm wearing the kilt:



...it'll get the job done...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQ0tzYxIG8

(Video linked above is rather graphic, if you're squeamish or not a marine, don't click it.)

[Bighead]

As far as voting, I think 21 is a good idea.  (The draft is long gone, so no one is being forced to serve.)

This has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with snowflakes fresh out of (or still serving in) leftist training academies.

I used to be against the Electoral College.... but not anymore.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though, it appears that our Governing Elite is now at the point where it is simply unable to reverse anything that has gone before.  No matter how stupid or ridiculous it is.   

Personally, I don't care if the voting age is 18 or 21, but I think voting ought to be restricted to taxpaying citizens. If you aren't supporting the government, you shouldn't have a say as to who is in the government.

Wouldn’t that remove most retirees from the voting polls ?

No

[Jess from VA]

I've got a few others, but my Cold Steel Basket Hilt is my primary blade when I'm wearing the kilt:



...it'll get the job done...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQ0tzYxIG8

(Video linked above is rather graphic, if you're squeamish or not a marine, don't click it.)

Amazing.  

I do have one sword.  A Brazilian 1908 Pioneer or Artillery short sword (that were issued with Mausers).
(mine is without rust)


And a decent collection of the correct bayonets for American, SMLE Brit, and Mauser/FN battle rifles (bolt).  Most in better shape than the rifles as they weren't used much (but the scabbards are usually in rough shape), and unsharpened (and you leave them that way).  The sword was not to match any rifle, but it was cheaper than most bayonets, and went well with the collection.

But that sword is not for poking, it is for hacking (and I did put an edge on it).

And the sword-like 24" bayonets for the '03 Springfield and the No1MkIII Lee Enfield







 

[Robert]

Interesting post but the 2nd amendment is a fail safe position, meaning if all else fails we have the right to keep arms and protect ourselves.

So how much gun or any weapon do you need to do this against what the opposite forces have today? How much have weapons improved from the days that this was written and did the people have the same weapons that the opposite forces had when written?

I doubt many would have the guts to do the things that this would require also. Since it would mean that, freedom means something to you and self control means something to you and not being a sheep and trusting in God and yourself for your own living. Not in the government and not in money, stores, all the conveniences we have today. To know you would be ok without someone telling you what to do and where to go. I doubt many have that sense of direction knowing what tyranny really looks like enough to be afraid to not trust someone with their lives and move in a direction that is self sufficient.

You would not release a captive animal out in the wild without learning why would you think a captive population would be any different? But we may see this exact thing soon. 

[solo1]

Many thanks for a decent discussion on my post. Lots of food for thought.  Also thanks, Meathead, for the words of Justice Scalia.

I would like to throw one more thing out here. I'm probably not in step with some and but it bothers me that the gun industry seems to me to be going balls out with just enough restraint to keep the Feds off their back.  When you do that and you have creeps who don't respect gun ownership, you will have problems. AND that's not counting the arseholes who shoot semiauto pistols sidewise.
To me, one example is the bump stock. It seems to me just a gimmick to let those who want to fire fully auto weapons find a way out of the Firearms Act of 1933 (please, if I have the date wrong, let's not get in a pissin' match)  . Since I have some age on me and also some experience in life, I might have a different take on this but I won't change.

As a vet who saw no combat, I only had occasion to carry a fully auto weapon on guard duty in my medical outfit in Korea. Our guard weapon was a selective fire M2 carbine with two 30 round magazine taped back to back . Would I want or need this weapon today here at home?  No, but I sure would like a newly manufactured M1 carbine.  The carbine is light to carry and would be a reminder of my tour.  Other than that, I have all that I need in firearms.  Not enough or nice enough to brag about (well maybe the Kimber).  My knowledge of firearms is sufficient to know that I have what I want or need.

A final word.  The Ar-15  with its numerous mods, is a great design.  I don't own one but I will do what I can to protest its condemnation as we all should do.

[Serk]

The bump stock was created in response to gun control, but not so much the NFA (Of 1934, but I had to look it up ) but as a response to the Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

I don't like it, but I'd be okay with the NFA applying to machine guns if it weren't for the Hughes Amendment. This basically closed the registry on legal NFA macine guns, making it impossible to legally make, manufacture, import any new legal machine guns post 1986.

If this hadn't been done, and new machine guns could still be produced under the auspices of the NFA, then the people who want them would still have to go through a 9-12 month background check but could still buy them without the need for gimmicks like bump stocks.

The existing pre-86 NFA registered machine guns are still out there, but at $20,000+ for an M16 are out of the reach of most mortal folks, thus the creation of things like the bump stock. No Hughes amendment, and it wouldn't have been necessary to create it in the first place.

[phideux]

As far as voting, I think 21 is a good idea.  (The draft is long gone, so no one is being forced to serve.)

This has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with snowflakes fresh out of (or still serving in) leftist training academies.

I used to be against the Electoral College.... but not anymore.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though, it appears that our Governing Elite is now at the point where it is simply unable to reverse anything that has gone before.  No matter how stupid or ridiculous it is.   

Personally, I don't care if the voting age is 18 or 21, but I think voting ought to be restricted to taxpaying citizens. If you aren't supporting the government, you shouldn't have a say as to who is in the government.

Wouldn’t that remove most retirees from the voting polls ?

No, pensions are taxable income. Non taxable income is govt. handouts.

[The emperor has no clothes]

As far as voting, I think 21 is a good idea.  (The draft is long gone, so no one is being forced to serve.)

This has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with snowflakes fresh out of (or still serving in) leftist training academies.

I used to be against the Electoral College.... but not anymore.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though, it appears that our Governing Elite is now at the point where it is simply unable to reverse anything that has gone before.  No matter how stupid or ridiculous it is.   

Personally, I don't care if the voting age is 18 or 21, but I think voting ought to be restricted to taxpaying citizens. If you aren't supporting the government, you shouldn't have a say as to who is in the government.

Wouldn’t that remove most retirees from the voting polls ?

No, pensions are taxable income. Non taxable income is govt. handouts.

Pensions for retirees have to reach a certain limit before they pay taxes. I live in a heavy populated senior area. I estimate half the seniors here pay no income taxes.

[Jess from VA]

Take a small pension (like mine), add social security, and you still pay taxes (state AND fed).

Some states give pensioners a break, but VA isn't one of them.

If I only got pension or SS (but not both), I might get away without any taxes.

Of course, there are 175 additional taxes we all pay on this or that (the number is only an estimate).

In light of the fact that (only) one political party makes buying votes with Govt (taxpayer) money their highest priority, the idea of making people forfeit their vote who live entirely on govt welfare remains a valid argument (regardless of the actual total amount of all welfare benefits received).  Because it's been shown to a moral certainty that those votes stay bought for a lifetime (even for generations).

[MarkT]

Technical ability is relatively easy to learn.  Morality comes with maturity I believe.  Strategic thinking as opposed to tactical.  What's right not what's possible. Yes I did my time in SEA.  I was a technician. But I also questioned orders (to myself).  Didn't refuse them.  However I wasn't given illegal orders. At my age - might have followed them.  Ten years later?  No.

[phideux]

As far as voting, I think 21 is a good idea.  (The draft is long gone, so no one is being forced to serve.)

This has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with snowflakes fresh out of (or still serving in) leftist training academies.

I used to be against the Electoral College.... but not anymore.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though, it appears that our Governing Elite is now at the point where it is simply unable to reverse anything that has gone before.  No matter how stupid or ridiculous it is.   

Personally, I don't care if the voting age is 18 or 21, but I think voting ought to be restricted to taxpaying citizens. If you aren't supporting the government, you shouldn't have a say as to who is in the government.

Wouldn’t that remove most retirees from the voting polls ?

No, pensions are taxable income. Non taxable income is govt. handouts.

Pensions for retirees have to reach a certain limit before they pay taxes. I live in a heavy populated senior area. I estimate half the seniors here pay no income taxes.

Ad to the fact that those retirees have paid taxes their entire life to get to that pension point. If they have any other retirement accounts like 401s or any Mutual Funds or stock dividends, they are all taxed.
I'll bet all the seniors that you are talking about have paid taxes their entire working life and have lost a good 10-20% of whatever money they made their entire working life to support the people who don't work or support themselves, or pay taxes to support the government.