Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13964
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by Rate This » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:31 am

km1125 wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:26 am
Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:58 am
....
I am not going to engage in a gotcha question fueled discussion. The members of the militia were the members of the continental army… that’s the well regulated part. Washington wasn’t commanding Jim Bob who ran out of his house in his underwear because the British were coming and just randomly started shooting. It was a tad more organized than that.
I think you need to do a bit more reading on that topic. The members of the "militia" were called to join the Continental Army.
And the militia is the national guard now. “The Militia of The United States” officially. And it’s well regulated not non-regulated. You can’t ignore that part of it being there. There’s no period denoting separate thoughts. It’s the justices once again standing on their heads to get the result they want.



km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by km1125 » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:09 pm

Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:31 am
km1125 wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:26 am
I think you need to do a bit more reading on that topic. The members of the "militia" were called to join the Continental Army.
And the militia is the national guard now. “The Militia of The United States” officially. And it’s well regulated not non-regulated. You can’t ignore that part of it being there. There’s no period denoting separate thoughts. It’s the justices once again standing on their heads to get the result they want.
Maybe they should get sued by OSU for using "The" in their name??

The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the National Guard to exist, nor any standing army. That we've allowed it to exist, and essentially be in a continuous state of war, also says a lot about humans being able to exist in a peaceful world.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by Bryce » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:43 pm

Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:31 am

And the militia is the national guard now. “The Militia of The United States” officially. And it’s well regulated not non-regulated. You can’t ignore that part of it being there. There’s no period denoting separate thoughts. It’s the justices once again standing on their heads to get the result they want.
The National Guard didn't exist at the time the COTUS was framed. The "well regulated militia" was made up of normal, everyday citizens. The right to bear arms, in some states a duty, was conferred upon those citizens. The founders understood that if you remove the right to defend yourself and your family, every single other right in the COTUS becomes completely meaningless.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13964
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by Rate This » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:07 pm

Bryce wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:43 pm
Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:31 am

And the militia is the national guard now. “The Militia of The United States” officially. And it’s well regulated not non-regulated. You can’t ignore that part of it being there. There’s no period denoting separate thoughts. It’s the justices once again standing on their heads to get the result they want.
The National Guard didn't exist at the time the COTUS was framed. The "well regulated militia" was made up of normal, everyday citizens. The right to bear arms, in some states a duty, was conferred upon those citizens. The founders understood that if you remove the right to defend yourself and your family, every single other right in the COTUS becomes completely meaningless.
It was conferred upon the ones in the militia.



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13964
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by Rate This » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:08 pm

km1125 wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:09 pm
Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:31 am
km1125 wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:26 am
I think you need to do a bit more reading on that topic. The members of the "militia" were called to join the Continental Army.
And the militia is the national guard now. “The Militia of The United States” officially. And it’s well regulated not non-regulated. You can’t ignore that part of it being there. There’s no period denoting separate thoughts. It’s the justices once again standing on their heads to get the result they want.
Maybe they should get sued by OSU for using "The" in their name??

The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the National Guard to exist, nor any standing army. That we've allowed it to exist, and essentially be in a continuous state of war, also says a lot about humans being able to exist in a peaceful world.
They never intended for a standing army to exist? What?
The continental army was started in 1775 and todays U.S army was created under the articles of confederation in 1784. Go read a book and learn something.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by Bryce » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:41 pm

Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:08 pm
km1125 wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:09 pm
Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:31 am
km1125 wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:26 am
I think you need to do a bit more reading on that topic. The members of the "militia" were called to join the Continental Army.
And the militia is the national guard now. “The Militia of The United States” officially. And it’s well regulated not non-regulated. You can’t ignore that part of it being there. There’s no period denoting separate thoughts. It’s the justices once again standing on their heads to get the result they want.
Maybe they should get sued by OSU for using "The" in their name??

The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the National Guard to exist, nor any standing army. That we've allowed it to exist, and essentially be in a continuous state of war, also says a lot about humans being able to exist in a peaceful world.
They never intended for a standing army to exist? What?
The continental army was started in 1775 and todays U.S army was created under the articles of confederation in 1784. Go read a book and learn something.
Maybe before you encourage reading lessons to others, you should read The Federalist, No. 29. An excerpt from Alexander Hamilton:
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Who echoed the thoughts of George Mason:
“No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence [sic], — yeomanry, unskillful and unarmed, — what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!”
Not to mention James Madison who said that a standing army was the
“greatest mischief that can happen.”
These opinions of the framers must be taken into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the meaning and intent of the COTUS.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13964
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by Rate This » Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:39 am

Bryce wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:41 pm
Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:08 pm
km1125 wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:09 pm
Rate This wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:31 am
km1125 wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:26 am
I think you need to do a bit more reading on that topic. The members of the "militia" were called to join the Continental Army.
And the militia is the national guard now. “The Militia of The United States” officially. And it’s well regulated not non-regulated. You can’t ignore that part of it being there. There’s no period denoting separate thoughts. It’s the justices once again standing on their heads to get the result they want.
Maybe they should get sued by OSU for using "The" in their name??

The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the National Guard to exist, nor any standing army. That we've allowed it to exist, and essentially be in a continuous state of war, also says a lot about humans being able to exist in a peaceful world.
They never intended for a standing army to exist? What?
The continental army was started in 1775 and todays U.S army was created under the articles of confederation in 1784. Go read a book and learn something.
Maybe before you encourage reading lessons to others, you should read The Federalist, No. 29. An excerpt from Alexander Hamilton:
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Who echoed the thoughts of George Mason:
“No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence [sic], — yeomanry, unskillful and unarmed, — what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!”
Not to mention James Madison who said that a standing army was the
“greatest mischief that can happen.”
These opinions of the framers must be taken into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the meaning and intent of the COTUS.
The lesson being that by 1784 they were all out of the picture and someone else had screwed up and created a standing army? Got it.

There’s philosophical musings but they don’t mean a damn thing when the rubber meets the road and the British are coming. The wiser people in the group knew they needed an army.

I have a dream similar to their fantasy about not having an army… that we will all get along like they do on Star Trek. I won’t hold my breath.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by Bryce » Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:16 am

Rate This wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:39 am


There’s philosophical musings but they don’t mean a damn thing when the rubber meets the road and the British are coming. The wiser people in the group knew they needed an army.
And who were the people that this army was made up of? Where did the weapons they used come from?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Supreme Court overturns New York's "Special Need" requirement for obtaining a concealed weapons permit

Post by audiophile » Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:55 am

If you don't like the second amendment, then change it. Stop the legislation from the bench, and the constitutionally unsound gun laws.

The USC should use the BASF commercial line: "We don't make the laws..."


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic