Yesterday's Mass Shooting.

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
She won her Georgia district primary nomination by 50 points, will she win the general? Speaking of Generals, did Sherman camp out in her district for an extended stay or something? What else explains the localized mixture of stupidity and insanity.
just poor genetics and chance...i've been to her district, several times, it doesn't seem that different than anywhere else, just inbred hillbillies still clinging to the 1860s, and the 1950s...which is a perfect description of every rural area in the united states and a good part of canada...
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Which of the three commas, two of which are supernumerary today? (oops; you did specify) Better not to punctuate there.
In eighteenth-century usage, the first clause is strictly explanatory and not at all conditional. Imposing modern usage is not honest.
Not conditional but confusing.

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.

To me this says..the people are of the Militia. For it to be two different parties, there would need to be a period after 'state'.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Not conditional but confusing.

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.

To me this says..the people are of the Militia. For it to be two different parties, there would need to be a period after 'state'.
But that commits a grammar gaffe. The first sentence would not have a primary clause.

Comma 2 is correct in current usage. The two extras give me the inappropriate mental image of listening to someone with emphysema.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
But that commits a grammar gaffe. The first sentence would not have a primary clause.

Comma 2 is correct in current usage. The two extras give me the inappropriate mental image of listening to someone with emphysema.
I do agree it wouldn't even make sense; but just how many arms? It doesn't say how many muskets though and nobody uses them anymore. People used to hunt and protect themselves..now they hunt people with weapons that weren't around when 2A meant muskets.

So what's the answer? Raise the age to 25..72-hour cool off period..Luxury Tax..minimally.
 
Last edited:

Dorian2

Well-Known Member
Not much without a pinch of lead azide over the primer. Without that twist, you’ll get a weak discharge or a squib.

An easier way to blow a gun up is too much of a too-fast powder.

View attachment 5143227
That happened to me on a firing range with an old 38. First time on the range after getting licensed and the guys with us had overloaded some ammo and one of them made the mistake of telling me that it was the correct ammo. Definitely not for an older firearm it wasn't. Lucky we followed the rule of standing in front of the line we were in when firing.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
That happened to me on a firing range with an old 38. First time on the range after getting licensed and the guys with us had overloaded some ammo and one of them made the mistake of telling me that it was the correct ammo. Definitely not for an older firearm it wasn't. Lucky we followed the rule of standing in front of the line we were in when firing.
I squibbed a 9mm. A shot felt weak. The next printed two holes well below the group.
When I stripped and cleaned the weapon, the bore looked ok. But after another hundred rounds, the gun was a bit hard to take apart.

Now a visual showed a very subtle barrel bulge. The overpressure was locally enough to screw the temper of the steel. I thanked my lucky stars, bought a new barrel and double- checked the half-assembled rounds for powder level. I’m pretty sure that the first round had no powder, but the primer was enough to jam the bullet an inch ahead of the chamber (cast 125), and what amazes me is that the weapon cycled. The second bullet cleared the first, but the sudden increase in inertia created enough pressure to effect the above, but luckily not enough to burst the barrel on the spot.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
It's hard to hear 'what's wrong with you Americans?' when 80% want this to change however it comes down to 10 GOP Senators.

I'd get rid of the filibuster immediately and put the pedal to the metal. NOW! Those 400 bills still sitting would be passed..it's June- we'd have five months..and maybe a prayer of winning the midterms once we see progress.

The mealy-mouthed Democratic bullshit on how we don't have a spine either because 'decorum'.

How many years is nothing going to get done?

Our government is like living paycheck to paycheck..only the absolute minimum can be done at any time with no forward movement.
 
Last edited:

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
It's hard to hear 'what's wrong with you Americans?' when 80% want this to change however it comes down to 10 GOP Senators..Mitch won't bring a vote anyway.

I'd get rid of the filibuster immediately and put the pedal to the metal. NOW!

The mealy-mouthed Democratic bullshit on how we don't have a spine either because 'decorum'.

How many years is nothing going to get done?

Our government is like living paycheck to paycheck..only the absolute minimum can be done at any time with no forward movement.
Lucky Luke needs to read this post.
 

Offmymeds

Well-Known Member
It's hard to hear 'what's wrong with you Americans?' when 80% want this to change however it comes down to 10 GOP Senators..Mitch won't bring a vote anyway.

I'd get rid of the filibuster immediately and put the pedal to the metal. NOW!

The mealy-mouthed Democratic bullshit on how we don't have a spine either because 'decorum'.

How many years is nothing going to get done?

Our government is like living paycheck to paycheck..only the absolute minimum can be done at any time with no forward movement.
It comes down to gun manufacturer donations to the NRA and NRA donations to weak, corruptible senators. Agreed, end filibuster specifically as a point against dark money's influence and Citizens United.

SCOTUS should NOT get an option either. Ethics rules immediately.
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
I do agree it wouldn't even make sense; but just how many arms? It doesn't say how many muskets though and nobody uses them anymore. People used to hunt and protect themselves..now they hunt people with weapons that weren't around when 2A meant muskets.

So what's the answer? Raise the age to 25..72-hour cool off period..Luxury Tax..minimally.
A huge starting point would be mandatory training of 40 hours then testing. You need a bit of commitment to do that and it’s no longer a free for all. AND no ones talking about taking guns, only a semblance of actual responsibility in owning a firearm.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Here’s what I got.



It is not cut&dry, and I acknowledge that usage, as well as the needs of a society in a way the Framers could not have anticipated, have changed and not just a little.

Add to this that the last two years have shown a cultural shift that became obvious: “a man and his musket” has transformed to groups of LARPing Klansmen with black rifles chatting up equally fascist cops. Repellent.

So I am ambivalent and a bit agonized. The Constitution was written with some glaring holes. “Every man was created equal” unless you were chattel, a pesky Native or female.

So consider me playing devil’s arvocate on the general principle of unintended consequences, but on the bottom line uncertain and capable of being convinced in the direction of less guns. The epidemiology of gun possession is sort of compelling.
I'm torn between reading that and listening to the Mariners-Orioles ballgame. Ballgame won. Half way through, I still don't see justification for our liberal gun laws. But I'll get back to it later.

Thanks for the reference
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
You all have been discussing this issue for a very long time :).

“An April 30, 1866 editorial in the New York Times argued against students carrying pistols, citing "...pistols being dropped on the floor at balls or being exploded in very inconvenient ways. A boy of 12 has his pantaloons made with a pistol pocket; and this at a boarding-school filled with boys, who, we suppose, do or wish to do the same thing. We would advise parents to look into it, and learn whether shooting is to be a part of the scholastic course which may be practiced on their boys; or else we advise them to see that their own boys are properly armed with the most approved and deadly-pistol, and that there may be an equal chance at least of their shooting as of being shot."
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Just a fun fact. When I was in high school we had a trip planned for kids who were interested. Unlike the one we sent our daughters on to Europe, this was a goose hunting trip to James Bay. Wonder if that would fly in today’s world lol.
Oh and we also had taxidermy as an elective lol.
 
Top