• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cletus Can Carry Concealed!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fair enough, I glossed over that whole convo starting with your post in #30, my bad. I'm against laws that would prohibit convicted felons from owning firearms, and that would include "gang members" however that is defined.
 
fourdegrees11 said:
Nothing about that statement implies a requirement for the half I quoted.

In fact what it's saying is that if you take away the right to bear arms a "well regulated militia" is not possible, and that it is necessary for a free state.
Click to expand...

Back then, Well Regulated Militia's existed. Where are they now?
 
JSt0rm said:
But to be clear you are removing an individuals right before they commit a crime because you think they will commit a crime. We could apply that logic to white people as well.
Click to expand...

They do. It's very similar to the RICO laws (which have affected 1000s of whites), if you're part of a group that is known to commit violent acts, it's your own fault for being affiliated with that group.
 
JSt0rm said:
Interesting.

So the 2nd amendment is for all people unless you come from a certain segment of the population that is more prone to gun violence and then it can be removed based on you being part of that population?
Click to expand...

If you're affiliated with a gang, or known to do business with organized crime (the Mob), yes.
 
MagickMan said:
The US population, barring some elected officials, is the militia. I agree, they should be better armed and trained (aka. "Well-Regulated".
Click to expand...

Like I said, it was more formal than that back then. Your version of things is an altering of the original understanding of what a Militia was. It wasn't just the Population, it was a segment of the population that would come together as needed. The States, for the most part, are the ones who called them to action. This was necessary because the US Federal Government did not have a Military force to defend the country, until the War of 1812 anyway.

Since then, as you posted, an Ad Hoc re-interpretation has been given to the original meaning.
 
MagickMan said:
They wrote anti-gang laws because young black males kill each other at a rate higher than any other group in the country, by a couple orders of magnitude. In fact, if you removed the black-on-black murders (black men age 18-35) from US statistics, our rate is the same as Canada and Denmark (within the statistical margin of error).
Click to expand...

Then it would seem like for the purpose of self defense young black men are the ones who need to carry guns more than any other demographic.
 
SP33Demon said:
That's why it's funny when neighboring states like MD/VA/PA are passing stricter gun laws. Anyone who wants to get a gun can easily go to WV and buy one off an ad in the paper/craigslist no questions asked. More faux outrage from city liberals who want to tell mountain men how to live in the mountains.
Click to expand...

The country is becoming so dumbed down that I think they're eventually going to make it a crime to simply give this type of information to people. It is already illegal to hand out jury rights fliers on the public land in front of a courthouse.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Who is saying that inner city black men should be banned from owning guns? All I would say (and what I'm assuming others are saying) is that it's D'Claudius that's more likely to shoot someone on the street than Cletus. West Virginia, despite being redneck and poor as hell, has a gun homicide rate below average for the country, and I'd like you to show an example of loosened concealed carry laws resulting in significantly higher gun homicide rates.
Click to expand...

You are also saying that D'Claudius is more likely to get shot too and therefore has a much greater need to protect himself with a gun.
 
There have certainly been black men with criminal records that have lawfully defended themselves, of course. That one story is coming to mind of a convicted felon who unlawfully owned a handgun, but used it to shoot an armed robber that was holding up a drug store or something; because it was Tennessee or Kentucky or thereabouts, he wasn't charged, thankfully. People can change and if they serve their time, I see no reason to force them to be second-class citizens for the rest of their lives.

The majority of firearms deaths happening in that community clearly don't fall under lawful defense though. fwiw, I'm not a believer that available firearms automatically means everyone is a good law-abiding citizen and that the bad guys cower in fear before the almighty power of the Second Amendment. Things are screwed there for so many reasons, and unless you enact a complete and total firearm ban, sweeping house-to-house confiscating them, there isn't much you can do to reduce firearm deaths there.
 
Last edited:
MagickMan said:
"Well Regulated" simply meant well sorted, re. having sufficient equipment. Not that they were gov't regulated, in the modern sense.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason

Click to expand...

So a militia is "the whole people"? Then why didn't the framers just say well regulated people? Did they mean back then to exclude black people from that amendment? After all were not black people counted as property?
 
Darwin333 said:
Then it would seem like for the purpose of self defense young black men are the ones who need to carry guns more than any other demographic.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! As long as they're 21 or older, have no felonies for violent behavior, and aren't associated with a gang, just like everyone else.
 
HomerJS said:
So a militia is "the whole people"? Then why didn't the framers just say well regulated people? Did they mean back then to exclude black people from that amendment? After all were not black people counted as property?
Click to expand...

They did. "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 People are the militia, and the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because they are the militia. It's pretty straight-forward. When blacks were freed they became part of "the People". This also is true for many people of Irish descent (my ancestors), as well. No one today really cares, but the Emancipation Proclamation also freed 1000s of Irishmen who were slaves (a great many in NYC).
 
Victorian Gray said:
Cletus.gif
Click to expand...


Some folks will never shoot off their toe,
But then again, some folk'll,
Like Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top