Kansas Crimson

japhy wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 10:12 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:57 am

pdub wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:47 am That is also my interpretation.

I read "well regulated" to be how the founders intended the Second Amendment to be flexible over time. The "well" qualifier implies that the permissibility of regulation necessarily might mean something different in 2000 than in 1800, and different in 2200 than 2000.

I find it interesting that the rights-conferring language ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") not only does not contemplate the acquisition of guns, but it also doesn't even contemplate ownership.*

It would follow that it is the "well regulated militia" that acquires and owns guns, and the people who "keep and bear" those guns.

Before Captain All-or-Nothing loses his goddamn mind: I do not read the Constitution as prohibiting individual gun acquisition, ownership or use. But, outside the limited scope of the right that is actually conferred under the Constitution, anything else is a privilege (which may be limited as legislatures and regulatory bodies determine).

* The Third Amendment refers to an individual "Owner" of a house, implying that if the founders had intended the Second Amendment to cover individual ownership of guns, they would have drafted the Second Amendment accordingly.

Is using actual legal terms and full text and context considered "semantics" or "moving the goal post"? Just asking for a friend.

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:03 am Semantics semantics. That isn't backtracking. No group of people ever had unanimous opinions about anything

But we've gotten so far off track. You guys wiggling around words just trying to so you told me so

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:32 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:03 am Semantics semantics. That isn't backtracking. No group of people ever had unanimous opinions about anything

But we've gotten so far off track. You guys wiggling around words just trying to so you told me so

Hahaha. Blatant liar gets shown to be a blatant liar and says it's just semantics. That a thing now? It's exactly what triggered my foe'ing of Ous.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:00 pm mjl melted down cuz I said Dajuan appeared physically exhausted during the Tenn game.

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:36 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:00 pm mjl melted down cuz I said Dajuan appeared physically exhausted during the Tenn game.

tired after playing almost 40 minutes a game 3 days in a row in a high level tournament at the start of the season? Blasphemy

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:56 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:48 pm But, I think I get it. It’s a debate about the semantics of “appearance.”

But hey, if it makes you feel better, let’s go with it. You got me!

Cuz, yea, Harris appeared to be physically outmatched by Tenn’s bigger, stronger, better conditioned guys.

If you’d like to argue otherwise, and that 2 points 4 turnovers and 5 fouls for a starting PG isn’t as bad a line as it may appear, then please go ahead.

It's not semantics, it's that you think he looks skinny so you bitch about him despite him being the second or third best player on this team.

5 fouls was the key there. The team sucked without him. But hey, he's skinny so he sucks, right? If you can't see how much better this team is with him on the floor, you don't know a fucking thing about basketball.

You do this shit over and over and over with wording things with intention to misrepresent something, you get called out on it, and you say it's semantics. It's not semantics, you're intentionally misleading by using the words you're using. Thank goodness for the foe feature.

TDub wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 11:06 pm one of the most surprising things in this thread is that randy has been around for years. Does that surprise anyone else or am I crazy

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:39 pm Why only have covid problems when you can have covid problems plus years later still have a failing economy, horrible mental health for everyone, and a divided nation

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 5:59 am Back to the Constitution and whatever the 2nd Amendment means and doesn't mean.
The same WHITE MEN who felt it was ok that they OWNED (and often mistreated) Black men and didn't allow their wives (and daughters) to vote are the guys we still allow their document/s to dictate what we should and shouldn't be doing as an American citizen - in 2023.
Sorry, I have some problems with that.

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 9:05 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 5:59 am Back to the Constitution and whatever the 2nd Amendment means and doesn't mean.
The same WHITE MEN who felt it was ok that they OWNED (and often mistreated) Black men and didn't allow their wives (and daughters) to vote are the guys we still allow their document/s to dictate what we should and shouldn't be doing as an American citizen - in 2023.
Sorry, I have some problems with that.

Did you know gun control legislature in this country had racist roots? It began to keep guns out of the hands of black people.

Are you racist? Do you still think they shouldn't have guns

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:17 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 9:05 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 5:59 am Back to the Constitution and whatever the 2nd Amendment means and doesn't mean.
The same WHITE MEN who felt it was ok that they OWNED (and often mistreated) Black men and didn't allow their wives (and daughters) to vote are the guys we still allow their document/s to dictate what we should and shouldn't be doing as an American citizen - in 2023.
Sorry, I have some problems with that.

Did you know gun control legislature in this country had racist roots? It began to keep guns out of the hands of black people.

Are you racist? Do you still think they shouldn't have guns

Did you know that I don't need some schmuck on crimson.com to educate me in regards to something he assumes people 200 years ago intended - or did not intend?
You ask if I am racist. The answer to your question is - yes. I am racist against any and all races.
I believe you are asking me if I think Black people should have guns. The answer to that question is, I don't feel ANYONE "SHOULD" have a gun.
I do believe people should have the right to own a "reasonable" (define "reasonable" as you will) gun but ONLY if those Black people (AND PEOPLE OF ALL RACES) are mentally "stable", law abiding, responsible adults.