misteraven

Reminds me of another thing I found interesting in regards to the gun debate... it’s clear there are cultural shifts in regards to what we find acceptable or not, in addition to differences in lifestyle, ideologies and ethics. What few people ever consider in regards to debates like the Bill of Rights and Second Amendment, is that language also evolves. It’s most obvious when you hear, or more often read, words that are antiquated and fallen out of the common vernacular. Further to that, however, are words that remain in use, but have shifted significantly in meaning or have had words obfuscated purposefully (there’s an entire discipline on that which is commonly applied in politics called Psycholinguistics). For example: Excerpt sourced from Cornell University School of Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 and https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/04/regarding-pesky-“well-regulated-militia”-2nd-amendment-what-exactly-did-it-mean “The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, 1789: “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.” The meaning of the word “Militia” was later codified under the Militia Act of 1792 which holds in part that the militia is made up of “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States” who “shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Naturally once the Thirteenth Amendment made African Americans free and equal citizens, the “white” part was made invalid. The Federalist Papers (Number 29, Alexander Hamilton) gives us our clue as to what “well regulated meant.” “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” So, “well regulated” really meant “properly functioning.” It didn’t have anything to do with setting rules and laws for the militia. They also commonly imagine that doing the “regulation” should be done on a federal level where the founders expected the militias to be organized at the state level and not under federal control. As to the individual vs collective right claim, libertarians and conservatives both say that the Constitution obviously confers the right to own a gun on the individual. Lately, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this individual right. Lastly, we all know that those of the right of center generally assume the Constitution to be the law of the land, a fixed document that only has to be read, not constantly “interpreted” in new and unusual ways. The Future: The recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Heller and McDonald) have thrown a bone in the left’s argument that the Second Amendment is only a “collective right.” From these two momentous decisions, courts are revisiting strict gun laws across the country. This will continue and many more cases will likely head toward the SCOTUS for debate. We will also see states and federal laws written to push the envelope. Commentary: Several things need to be pointed out. Firstly the founders did not want to exclude any standing, national army. After all, the army is taken care of elsewhere in the Constitution. The militia was supposed to exist concurrently with the standing army but operate separately. Secondly, the founders expected that the right to self-protection was an inalienable right given to us by God. After all, without the power to protect ourselves and our property–and the sanctity of personal property is key, here–we were not free men. Those that must look to others for protection of life, liberty, and property are beholden to someone else and, therefore, not free men. In this light, Thomas Jefferson was adamant in his drafts of the Virginia Constitution of 1776: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” You see, the founders based a lot of their ideas of the law on the ideas of an English lawyer named William Blackstone whose works were widely reprinted in the colonies. Here is what Blackstone said about being armed in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 2, 1765: “…since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society…” I mention this to explain why the founders did not include in the Constitution any language that specifically notes the individual’s rights. It was taken as granted and therefore unnecessary to reiterate in a document they were trying to make as concise as possible. So, in modern terms, you cannot take away from a man the right to self-defense on either the micro or macro level. This hardbound natural right codified by Blackstone led Supreme Court Justice Joseph story to put it in clearer terms where it concerns the purpose of the militia: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms,” Story wrote, “has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” Thirdly, the founders also located power over the military/militias in four places to further prevent its tyrannical use. Congress regulated all branches of the military, but the president was the ultimate commander of that military, yet the states were placed over the militias when not in federal service. Finally, the individual citizens were in control of their firearms never to be disarmed. As founding father Samuel Adams said during Massachusetts’s convention to Ratify the Constitution: “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” One last point needs clarification and that is the discussion of muskets vs today’s arsenal. The word “bear” meant to be able to carry or hold. In some parlance of the time “bear” even meant to be able place in one’s coat. This necessarily restricts the sort of arms we are talking about as it means we are talking about an arm that is operated by one person, not a team of men. Certainly the founders meant Americans to “bear” military grade arms. One cannot be a member of a para-military group using small caliber plinkers and varmint guns. In their day arms meant military weapons. Muskets, pistols, even swords were “arms.” Cannons, land mines, and ships of war, however, were the “weapons of mass destruction” of the founder’s era. They never expected that the people had any right to those weapons of war. Such weapons of mass destruction are more properly, then and now, called ordnance as opposed to arms. It is also why the Navy is dealt with elsewhere in the Constitution. This means that when the left taunts you by saying, “what, did the founders think you should have a rocket launcher, a jet fighter plane or a nuclear weapon?,” they are revealing their ignorance, not making a valid argument. The founders meant for the people to have military grade rifles and pistols. They excluded ships of war and cannons so by logical extension modern ordnance would similarly fall outside the rights of the Second Amendment. So, no, the founders would NOT have thought we had a right to a nuclear weapon. In conclusion, the Second Amendment clearly gives an individual a right to firearms, those firearms can be military grade, they can and should be expected to be used for both personal protection and to prevent government from become tyrannical by arranging themselves into para-military groups, and the government has no right whatever to take your firearms away from you.

@Fox Mulder another name I haven’t seen in ages that was a regular.

Damn and another @TheoHuxtable. Also with a high post count. What happened there?

Jeezus... @1/4FareMetrocard joined Feb 5, 2006, last activity April 5, 2007 and has 12,962 posts?! How is that even possible? Anyone know who that is? Owe dude a congratulatory package or something.

Just noticing a lot of big names that are banned. Anyone remember why? @CACashRefund and @willy.wonka for example

Some of the OG females... @Devilush and @Milk Grenades To recover those crazy post counts, if nothing else.

@T.T Boy you still around?

Also bumped you to VIP.

@TheoHuxtable was last on almost a year ago on Aug 13, 2017.

Oh shit! Welcome back dude. Lots to catch up on. (and damn you’re up early AF if you’re still out in Houston) Suggest starting here: http://forum.12ozprophet.com/threads/weigh-in-has-the-social-media-revolution-devolved-conversation.148220/

@DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER is another who was on not that long ago. Back in November.

Here’s a link to the members list to make this a little easier: https://forum.12ozprophet.com/members/

Last activity from @cmeup was quite a while ago... feb 23, 2003. Not the oldest to reappear I think, but that’ll be a tough one I think. Anyone in touch?

Mind reaching out to him?

LOL, there you go... Situation fixed.

Thanks @Joker Seen some armor that looked like neoprene or spandex with soft padding and then a sort of hard plastic shell. Figuring shin guards and knee pads, along with elbow pads at the least. I generally have soft hip pads for snowboarding and would likely rock a set and definitely a helmet and gloves. Actually most worried about my hands and shins, beyond busting my head. Does look like freakin fun though... https://skiwhitefish.com/mountain-biking/

LOL, so freakin good! *Could have used a little more jiggle in that last one, had I been creative director on that set.

@6Pennies We should really get this thread going man. Lots of knowledge, experience, suggestions, insight and even a lot of really cool pictures you could share (if you don't mind doing so). Honestly, just reposting a lot of your earlier Instagram stuff would be a great start.

And... @Fist 666 takes the crown. Heated competition gents. Hats off.

@KaBar2 was just on here. Assume that’s the same account as @KaBar Which shows no activity since 2003. If so, DM me and I’ll merge them so you can get the early date and full post count.

Just DM’ed @Poesia [ ] T so hopefully he’ll drop through. Still looking for some of the others you mentioned.

Whats the point of all that suspension if its not to bail down mountain sides at three thousand miles an hour?! What teh heck is a downhill bike? What the difference?

I've reached out to @SukiSukiNow but will do so again. Not in touch with any others that I know of but will see if I can hunt them down on the gram. @Pistol Just a heads up that if you precede the username with the @ symbol like I am, it notifies them (unless they've disabled notifications or have the wrong email setup on their account). It should even autofill the name once you get 3 or 4 characters in, but noticed in some of the names that havent logged in for many years its not doing that.

Anyone into serious mountain biking that can recommend the proper armor and helmet so I'm not buying some bullshit?