scrub_tier

Perhaps the poster isn't particularly articulate. There are hawks on both sides of the isle, but I'm not necessarily convinced that they're comparably equal. I personally would be interested who's backers benefit most from policies of force, and perhaps map it to their economic incentives in state economies and campaigning. I get the impression it's at least publicly conceived that Republican appeal to a more hardline defensive policies looking back 4 administrations, at least at a policy level.

Hi!

I agree completely that we should not language shiv out legal problems away lest we destroy ourselves in favorable ambiguity. My question was clearly poorly articulated (smells of irony).

The first clause established a clear goal and intent, while the second is the statement of action.

The more interesting legal question to me (my legalese is super weak, so please excuse), why is any law that would not hamper a militia be considered unconstitutional? Other than Heller seems to have set the definition militia to something frankly disturbing.

Interesting, I appreciate your feedback.

Why does equality if availability with local state institutions appeal to you?

Hehe, fair enough. May I ask the question this way? What is the intrinsic risk of a land war between the US and another foreign power? I'm currently mobile trying to find the ATF and NRA data on distribution, but my recollection was that most fire arms were concentrated in larger collections. How do you characterise firearms ownership in the larger civilian market? It makes 100% sense to me regardless of law if you live in Nevada or Alaska to have some sort of force to bring to bear where the faculties of the state are in short supply and geographically challenging, but why rifles in suburbia?

Hi Justin.

It's not that I disagree. In fact, I too believe it to be intrinsically hypocritical than not the more I've re-read it since I posed my initial question. HOWEVER, how we talk about things can be colored by our choice of words. The original poster is correct, but offers no examples from the case document. I believe when we state what we believe to be true, but don't support it directly may be somewhat counter productive to the more open discussion. I appreciate your feedback.

Devils advocate: Mincing words and dancing around language can sometimes lead us away from solutions or understanding. I'm taking a risk. :)

I'm realizing I'm only partially familiar with some of our laws. Is there any data you or the poster can link to illustrate your claims?

Hi! Appreciate the feedback.

So you raise any interesting point. I'm only concerned about the law of the land since it's generally more or less the common ground we are forced to live on.

New question, and this is more open to derailment, but let's risk it.

ASSUME your current policy (liberal or conservative) is wrong, what what extent do you have the right to choose it anyways?

Respectfully, even if there was a strong recognized militia they had a tank I cannot follow the reasoning. We're a troubled democracy, but the army is practically saintly to many. A sample size of 1 is small, but does anyone here NOT know someone in the military? If so, would you shoot your fellow countrymen? I understand how quickly people abandon their principles in times of crisis, but in 230 years and we've had one civil war?

While I happen to agree and appreciate your input, let's avoid words like hypocracy for now. It tends to nurture hostility and I'm trying to get some real insight.

Undoubtedly supressors do decrease gas discharge from the muzzle and increase the safety of the system to the user. However, I feel you've chosen a best case scenario and haven't addressed my other points.

Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber wipes which are only good for a couple shots. I hadn't intended to make that point a technical critique of suppressive technology so much as an indication of the perceived need over other options. When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear, then I'm hunting far away from hopefully all society and being safe about it?

Regardless, I appreciate your candor.

"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."

Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my sincere honest intent to understand your point of view.

How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?

How does your right contribute to the security of the state?

How did you come to believe you needed this capability?

At the risk of appealing to authority, we have established case law in all of our rights which to a reasonable extent remove the protection of our rights for the benefit of the community. We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis. We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater lest I risk my own imprisonment for endangering the lives of others.

Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?