There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

uis ,

The sketch! He indeed was stormtrooper.

Iron_Lynx ,

Y’know, this is in this weird spot where it’s right between canon and as seen (which, by the way, can be explained even with canonical things). If it was truly as seen, the shots would have gone way wide. If it was truly canon, the Reps would be scrambling for a new candidate now.

Iron_Lynx ,

The explanation for Stormtroopers’ shoddy marksmanship on screen in A New Hope is because Vader wanted Leia & company to escape, but by the skin of their teeth, so that they would basically drop their guard the instant The Falcon took off from the Death Star and not realise there was a tracker bug installed. If Vader just let them fly off unopposed, that would probably be hella sus, and they’d probably pull over at the first asteroid to find and chuck said tracker bug. So the Stormtroopers were specifically instructed to shoot to thrill, not to kill.

When faced with opposition without plot armour and reasons to keep them alive, Stormtroopers are fucking brutal, as seen in The Empire Strikes Back - Hoth was somewhere between a decisive Imperial victory and an Imperial Curb Stomp

anachronist , (edited )

When faced with opposition without plot armour and reasons to keep them alive, Stormtroopers are fucking brutal, as seen in The Empire Strikes Back - Hoth was somewhere between a decisive Imperial victory and an Imperial Curb Stomp

Their shooting was also terrible on Endor. Maybe those were the flunky storm troopers that got put on the imperial guard due to nepotism or corruption?

Iron_Lynx ,

I suspect that any modern force ambushed in a jungle, or any type of complex, unfamiliar terrain, by primitive fighters who know the place like the back of their hands will suffer.

There are stories of UK soldiers in the sixties being ambushed by a man with a scimitar, and it took them a while and several fairly serious injuries before they could line up a shot with their FALs.
Not to forget the Vietnam war which, despite the advanced force being a coalition led by the US, and said coalition resorting to torching the jungle and other war crimes, still ended being up a North Vietnamese victory.

The Endor force, while not outgunned, was maybe outnumbered and definitely outwitted.

anachronist ,

The storm troops on Endor were not ambushed. They knew the attack was coming. They were fighting from prepared defenses on a fire base. The fact that they were drawn out of the base to fight in the jungle was a lack of judgement on their part. Their whole mission was to protect the shield generator.

John_McMurray ,

They literally are. Their most common chambering is an ideal white tail cartridge.

mojofrododojo ,

hunting human rifles.

let’s be honest, it was designed as a lightweight emergency carbine made of space aged materials. 60 years later we’re arguing if the founding fathers meant bump stocks and cmags when they said well regulated militia.

CyberMonkey404 ,

lightweight emergency carbine

Huh, was it? So the platform wasn’t designed as a main infantry weapon?

mojofrododojo ,

Not initially. went through tons of growth after the AR-10 was designed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite

CyberMonkey404 ,

Thanks

corsicanguppy ,

AR15’s

We don’t pluralize with an apostrophe. English harder, please.

AndrasKrigare ,

Except when you do writingcenter.uagc.edu/apostrophes

Apostrophe when making a number plural is not uncommon.

EmpathicVagrant ,

I love you. You are love.

lseif ,

okay mr dictionary…oops, did i forget a comma ?

andrewrgross ,

People joke about the shooter “missing”, but at a few hundred feet away, a 2" miss is clearly within the influence of wind.

Trump got extremely lucky. I don’t think this was the result of a poor shot.

Maggoty ,

He fired 8 shots. It was poor shooting.

BigBananaDealer ,
@BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee avatar

i thought it was 2 or 3 and the rest of the shots heard are the secret service snipers

Darkenfolk ,

And somehow everyone missed, unbelievable!

Maggoty ,

Yes. 23 hours ago the news reported 8 shots. Now they’re reporting 2-4.

chiliedogg ,

Most people using an AR buy cheapo 115 grain FMJ to shoot from their $600 AR. Cheap ammo from a cheap AR will group at 5-6 inches shooting with a bipod from a bench with a minute between shots with no wind at that range.

Throw in wind, stress, sub-optimal support, and rapid fire and it’s a very difficult shot.

Which is good and bad. Good in that assassinations should fail. Bad in that it means this asshole was shooting up a crowd.

Maggoty ,

Are you grouping that at 100 yards? Because I think your barrel is screwed up if that’s true. 2-3 inches on a mass market AR is common from a controlled setup. Of course most people are not as accurate as their gun so if they’re shooting then yeah it can be wild.

chiliedogg ,

He was shooting closer to 200 yards I thought.

My main AR groups better. I’ve got a higher-end AR with a .223 Wylde 1:7 barrel and when I shoot SMKs through it it’ll group a ragged hole. But that’s not the setup most people are buying and shooting.

But my gun is triple the cost of a standard AR-15, and the glass on top is even more expensive.

Maggoty ,

400ft, 120M, 130Y.

And yeah that’s the thing. What a modern gun can do locked into a bench is going to be way better than what most shooters can do.

EarthShipTechIntern ,

What’s that? I don’t think Trump can 'ear you.

Too soon?

frezik ,

Not soon enough.

daltotron ,

I mean I think I’d say it was more the result of poor preparation than anything. I think most places are saying he had like, 3 shots or somewhere around there, and apparently his rifle had no optic on it at all, which is kind of an insane idea at that distance. Which I think also maybe lends credence to the idea that this was just some impulse decision rather than a prepared kind of thing. I don’t think it’s that hard of a shot to make in general, even given the single opportunity that you’re going to be working with, I’ve hit soda cans with .22s at similar ranges. You barely have to take into account windage or holdover and I haven’t seen any evidence of heavy wind on the day of, really.

So, I dunno, I think it’s probably just an idiot kid killing himself in like, some elaborate suicide by cop or something. or just a dumb groyper, jury’s still out.

BobGnarley ,

Its a good thing the second amendment doesn’t just include a clause for hunting! People often forget it says

“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.”

Rivalarrival ,

Too many people don’t understand that “militia” and “people” are synonymous as used in 2A.

ulkesh ,
@ulkesh@beehaw.org avatar

If said people are a part of a well-regulated militia, sure. I don’t know of many who are…oh wait, I know of none because militias in the terms the founders would define don’t exist anymore. The closest thing is the National Guard.

But yeah, whatever the courts say is always right and never wrong. So militias are all people, corporations are people, and a collection of cells are people. But veterans coming home from war? Nope, get a job slackers. Can’t afford a home? Live on the streets, slackers. Oh homelessness is illegal now? Time for prison, slackers.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

If said people are a part of a well-regulated militia, sure

This is the exact misconception I was talking about.

The militia consists of the “whole body of the people”. We know this from various contemporary writings, including descriptions in the Federalist Papers. We know how the term was used in the constitution, and we know it was used to refer to “We The People”.

In the constitution, it is always referred to as a singular entity. It is never referred to in the plural: there are no such thing as “militias”; there is only one “militia”.

You mentioned the National Guard. In constitutional terms, the National Guard would be a “[provision] for calling forth the militia” (Article I, Section 8, part 15). The members of the national guard haven’t been called forth to the militia. They have been called forth from the militia. This becomes obvious when we look at the other major provision for calling forth the militia: Selective Service. The Draft.

Congress’s authority to institute a draft, compelling “We The People” to report for military training and service against our individual will comes from their power to “call forth” the militia. We are members of the militia, and we are called forth. We are called forth from the militia, not to it. Congress would have no power to draft us if we were not members of the militia, and subject to their provisions established under the militia clauses. Which means that We The People are, in fact, the militia described in Article I and the Second Amendment.

If you don’t feel you and your fellow militiamen are adequately “well regulated”, you should petition Congress to impose more requirements than what they currently deem necessary and proper regulation of the militia, and I’ll see you at the next muster.

ulkesh ,
@ulkesh@beehaw.org avatar

What you describe is an interpretation that the courts have laid out, nothing more. And the point I make is that the courts are many times wrong. And in this case, it is wrong. One aspect is that women were not called to (sorry) FROM militia. Yet women are afforded this right today, yes? So a single woman prior to the courts’ various opinions over the centuries would not have such a right, since they would not be a part of the militia – thus, the founders did not intend on it being every person. In fact, women were not even considered full citizens then since they did not possess the right to vote. Then there’s the subject of slaves which I have no interest in diving into since that’s an even bigger can of worms.

The point is that interpretations is what has won, not original intent. You can hand-wave this as a misconception all you want, but there is logic in it. And that logic is that the Constitution was designed to change over time solely because the founders could not envision the future state of existence, only lay the groundwork for such. Therefore as the second amendment is written, women at minimum should not have this right because, even today, they cannot be drafted – by your own statements: “the militia: Selective Service. The Draft.”

Rivalarrival , (edited )

You raise a very, very good point.

So a single woman prior to the courts’ various opinions over the centuries would not have such a right, since they would not be a part of the militia

What you are describing are the provisions Congress has made under their authority in Article I. They have created a legislative definition of “militia” (10 USC 246) that is restricted to male citizens. Female national guardsmen are the only women that fit within this legislative definition.

I think we can agree that Congress is fully empowered to change its legislative definition. We would probably agree that the current definition is unconstitutionally sexist and ageist. Congress could change their age limit from 45 to 60, and remove their “male” limitation. They could expand their definition to include a very, very broad range of people, if they wanted to. They probably couldn’t expand it to include 8-year-old kids or quadriplegics; the court would probably rule that sending kids and severely handicapped people to war is unconstitutional, but they can certainly include far more people in that legislative definition than they actually did.

Constitutional rights do not originate from legislature, and cannot be revoked by the legislature. Congress can, indeed, change the legislative definition of “militia”, but they cannot change the constitutional meaning except through an amendment.

So, if Congress could rewrite its definition and compel women to register for the draft tomorrow, then women were members of the “Well Regulated Militia” yesterday, and 200 years ago. Congress’s failure to provide for calling forth female members of the “well-regulated militia” has zero impact on the rights guaranteed by 2A.

Schadrach ,

In fact, women were not even considered full citizens then since they did not possess the right to vote.

Like most things, this was up to the individual states. Like anything up to the individual states, it was all over the place depending on exactly where you were. For example, at the founding women in New Jersey could vote, presuming they owned 50 British pounds worth of wealth because the wealth requirement was the only requirement New Jersey had for who could vote. Ironically, the spread of Jacksonian democracy (aka universal male suffrage) actually cost women in New Jersey the right to vote in the 19th century.

ulkesh ,
@ulkesh@beehaw.org avatar

I meant federally protected right to vote, since that’s apples to apples comparison with the second amendment being a federal right. Thus, from a federal point of view, women were not full citizens in many various terms.

Schadrach ,

The Constitution didn’t establish a right to vote for men in general or any men in particular. It left the question of which citizens were allowed to vote fully up to the states.

Or to go deeper: The Declaration of Independence limited voting to landowners. The Constitution set no regulations whatsoever for which citizens could vote, leaving it wholly up to the states. There are various trends in state laws over time but nothing federal regarding who can vote (other than various immigration laws about who can be naturalized). Until the 15th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Technically, men did not have a federally protected right to vote until women did, the 19th amendment. Though state laws had expanded to give essentially all free white men the vote in every state shortly before the Civil War, but that’s not from that federal point of view you’re so worried about.

ulkesh ,
@ulkesh@beehaw.org avatar

Seems like you’re making my point for me despite my point being specifically about women’s citizenship and 2A supposedly applying to everyone (you know, “militia”) when it actually doesn’t.

Thanks!

Maggoty ,

According to the court 175 years later.

frezik ,

And also the founders. Some of them loved the idea of a militia instead of a standing army. There was even an attempt at a militia navy. Which is insane. “Got my musket and rowboat. Off to defend the homeland!” rows towards French 90-gun ship.

The whole idea behind a militia was barely practical back then, and isn’t at all with industrialized warfare. If that’s the argument for the 2nd A, then it might as well be tossed on the same pile as the 3rd A of “anachronistic stuff that made sense to somebody at the time”.

Maggoty ,

Some of the founders. And they were referring to town and state militias, not one big unorganized one. The idea that “the people” comprise “the militia” in a one to one manner tracks to a World War 2 era Supreme Court decision.

Jumpingspiderman ,

Then why does the amendment refer to a Well Regulated Militia? If “People” were synonymous, the amendment doesn’t make sense. “Well regulated people”?

Rivalarrival ,

Go back to Article I, Section 8, and perform that same substitution. Replacing “Militia” with “People” does not change the meaning of Article I in the slightest.

The term “militia” was used in the second amendment specifically to reference the militia clauses in Article I. If Article I had referred to “Yeomanry” or “Snorglubben”, the Second Amendment would have used those terms instead.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia People, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia People according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Can’t say I agree with your conclusion there, that’s a pretty significant change of meaning. The Militia is explicitly described as something that is organized, armed, disciplined, and trained by Officers.

Rivalarrival ,

Are you not a person?

Does Congress not have the authority to organize you, arm you, govern you, employ you? Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?

Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?

You certainly can make some distinctions between “person” and “militiaman”. A 4-year-old child is a person and not a militiaman. The courts would certainly rule against the idea that Congress can organize a Children’s Brigade under the militia clauses. They would rule on constitutional grounds against paraplegics, or the mentally disabled being drafted. But we aren’t talking about these exceptional cases. We are talking about the general case, and the general case is that it is your status as a person that makes you a member of the militia.

Indeed, I think that Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others. They have that authority under the Militia clauses; I think they should exercise it.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Squares and rectangles, you can’t generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.

Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others.

You won’t hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency, although this was written when Militias were the primary national defense in lieu of the standing Army we now maintain.

But the rest of your interpretation reads more like you’re working backwards from the conclusion you want to prove.

Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?

Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?

Broadly speaking, no I would not say that’s the case .

The founders did not make a habit of codifying lazy verbage, if they meant People in general they would have written People in general. They chose the words they did to convey specific and distinct meanings. Militia refers particularly to that portion of a community trained for “martial exercise”. If you’re not trained, I’d argue specifically trained by the state, you’re not part of the Militia. A candidate for it perhaps, but not a member until you’ve been trained by the state for the purpose.

Rivalarrival ,

You won’t hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency

As you used it in that statement, the term “adults” is synonymous with “well regulated militia” as used in the constitution, and “people” as I have used the term.

It is because we are militia/people/adults that we can be compelled to attend the training you describe, or be otherwise drafted into service.

Squares and rectangles, you can’t generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.

This is true, there is not a complete overlap, but I accounted for the non-squares in my last comment. My point is not that militia contains absolutely all members of “we the people”. My point is made when “equilateral rectangles” are the general rule, and “non square” is an exceptional case.

When you see a random person on the street and have no special information about them, It is unreasonable to presume they are not a member of the militia.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

No I heard what you said, I don’t agree with that interpretation. No training, no Militia. A raw egg isn’t an omelet . Again, you started with your conclusion and are interpreting the words to justify it.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

Alright, how about this: fail to register with selective service, and young men cannot get or renew a driver’s license or financial aid for college. They can even be charged with a crime, all for failing to follow one of the very few regulations imposed upon the militia.

How can they be punished for not fulfilling their militia duty if they are not militia?

I started by asking “who is the militia?”, nothing more. The legislature told me who they thought was the militia (every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45) and I asked why women weren’t included. Then I realized the definition the legislature used was not the definition used in the Constitution, and I allowed it to expand to as broad a concept as Congress would have access to: everyone.

Your interpretation of “no training, no militia” is not unreasonable as a practical matter, but we are talking about constitutional law, constitutional rights. If there are any rights attached to the concept of “militia”, liberty demands we assume the broadest reasonable interpretation; if there are any infringements attached to the militia, the narrowest definition possible.

“Well regulated militia” is not the “gotcha” that hoplophobes think it is.

agamemnonymous , (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

young men cannot get or renew a driver’s license or financial aid for college. They can even be charged with a crime, all for failing to follow one of the very few regulations imposed upon the militia.

This interpretation is inconsistent for a couple reasons. First, selective service is for the Army, a federal institution; Militias are directed at the state level, so it’s not really appropriate to conflate selective service with a Militia. This might be a rational argument if selective service was for the National Guard.

Further, if Militia and People are synonymous as you suggest, you’re implying that everyone who isn’t registered (women, children, men over the age of 25) aren’t People.

How can they be punished for not fulfilling their militia duty if they are not militia?

Again, Army ≠ Militia. The Selective Service Act is for conscription into the standing Army, which is a constitutionally distinct entity. Additionally, selective service didn’t exist until 1917.

I started by asking “who is the militia?”, nothing more. The legislature told me who they thought was the militia (every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45) and I asked why women weren’t included. Then I realized the definition the legislature used was not the definition used in the Constitution, and I allowed it to expand to as broad a concept as Congress would have access to: everyone.

Yes, once again I repeat that you are deciding what conclusion you want to reach, and then selecting definitions and justifications that support your conclusions, because the established definitions don’t. This is extremely poor logical form.

Your interpretation of “no training, no militia” is not unreasonable as a practical matter, but we are talking about constitutional law, constitutional rights. If there are any rights attached to the concept of “militia”, liberty demands we assume the broadest reasonable interpretation; if there are any infringements attached to the militia, the narrowest definition possible.

This doesn’t make rational sense. The definition is what it is, and the rights and infringements thereon lay where they lay. Picking and choosing to minimize responsibilities and maximize benefits to suit your personal disposition is an abomination to legal consistency.

I defer to Johnson’s Dictionary when nitpicking definitions of words used by the founders, as it was literally the definitive authority at the time. Militia is defined as “The trainbands; the standing force of a nation”, and since ‘trainbands’ is an archaic term, I’ll include that it is defined as “The militia; the part of a community trained to martial exercise”. Eliminating that little loop, we arrive at the accepted definition of Militia at the ratification of the Constitution: the standing force of a nation; the part of a community trained to martial exercise.

‘People’ is simply defined as “A nation; these who compose a community”. The Militia is a part of that community, specifically the part which is trained to martial exercise. The Constitution underwent many revisions, poring over every word. When they meant People, they wrote People; if they wrote Militia, they damn well meant exactly “Militia”, as literally defined. Any other interpretation is willfully disingenuous.

“Well regulated militia” is not the “gotcha” that hoplophobes think it is.

It’s a prefatory clause, intended to communicate vital information. If the information included in that clause was not important to the interpretation of the text, it would have been excised during revision. No other amendment justifies itself that way, despite the fact that they all have justifications. The only honest conclusion is that the founders intended that clause to be Included for a material purpose.

Claiming that this one clause in the entire document was included for no real reason and can be safely disregarded is, again, willfully disingenuous and an abomination against our most sacred foundations.

Rivalarrival ,

This interpretation, is inconsistent for a couple reasons. First, selective service is for the Army, a federal institution;

There is no means other than the militia clauses to call forth a person and compel them to serve in the army. It is because they are members of the militia that they can be called forth to serve in the army. Without the militia clauses, the 13th Amendment would prohibit such an act.

While we are on the subject of armies, take a look at Article I Section 8 clauses 12, 13, and 14.

*Congress has the power to “raise” an army. They can create one.

Congress has the power to “provide” a Navy. They can create one.

Congress does not have the power to “create” a militia. The militia is presumed to exist; Congress can “call it forth”.

Further, if Militia and People are synonymous as you suggest, you’re implying that everyone who isn’t registered (women, children, men over the age of 25) aren’t People.

Nope. Addressed that long ago: Selective service is a legislative provision, and is not the “well regulated militia” referred to in the constitution. Congress has provided a means for calling forth only part of the constitutional militia. They are empowered to provide for calling forth the entirety of the militia; they have not made such a provision. The largest group that they could provide for calling forth tomorrow (“the people”) were members of the “well regulated militia” yesterday.

This doesn’t make rational sense. The definition of what it is, and the rights and infringements thereon lay where they lay. Picking and choosing to minimize responsibilities and maximize benefits to suit your personal disposition is an abomination to legal consistency.

It’s called the rule of lenity. It is a natural extension of the principles of “presumption of innocence” and “burden of proof”. When law, regulation, clauses, or other terms, conditions, or requirements can be rationally interpreted multiple ways, the applicable interpretation is the one that most favors the person claimed to be in violation.

Claiming that this one clause in the entire document was included for no real reason and can be safely disregarded

I made no such claim. Quite the contrary, the clause was included for a very important reason.

The only honest conclusion is that the founders intended that clause to be Included for a material purpose.

Agreed. And for that, I’ll take you back to Article I, Section 8, clauses 12, 13, and 14. Congress is empowered to create armies and a navy. The Second Amendment tells us that this created military is not the entity charged with providing security of a free state. That security is provided not by the government or any other government creation, but by the militia; the people.

I will note that the following clause is the operative one: the right is not granted to the states or the militia, or to those members of the militia who have been called forth. The right is specifically guaranteed to the people. It makes little sense to guarantee the right to the people if the people aren’t the militia.

I think I’m about done here, so I’ll try to sum it up. Basically, you sound like this:

“A well trained driver, being essential to the safe operation of a vehicle, the right of squirrels to attend drivers ed may not be infringed”.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Again, your line of reasoning ignores the “trained” aspect of a Militia, and implies that everyone who isn’t subject to conscription isn’t People.

If you want to suggest that the state-based National Guard should train all adults in “military exercise”, including the responsible operation of firearms, you’ll hear nothing but support from me. I believe that everyone, leading into adulthood, should receive training roughly in line with the concept of JROTC. I believe this, or comparable training, should engage nicely with the 2nd Amendment.

I do not believe that every unhinged yahoo having access to firearms is desirable. Driver’s Ed is actually a great parallel. If you cannot demonstrate that you are capable of responsibly operating a vehicle, you are not permitted to do so, at least not in public spaces. If you cannot demonstrate that you are capable of responsibly wielding a firearm, you should not be permitted to do so, at least not in public spaces.

If your objection, as tends to be the case, is “Then the government will feel too comfortable limiting the check popular firearm ownership places on despotism!”, this isn’t the 18th century. The standing Army can easily overwhelm any grassroots opposition.

If your objection is something else not addressed, I will be happy to respectfully consider and engage with it.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

Again, your line of reasoning ignores the “trained” aspect of a Militia,

10USC246 is narrower than the constitutional meaning. It is the legislative definition of “militia”, and defines two classes of that militia. Your “trained” qualification accepts only one of those two classes, not both. Your definition conflicts with even the legislative definition, let alone the broader constitutional meaning.

You invented the “trained” qualification. Pulled it straight out of thin air, with no constitutional, legal, contemporary, or even semantic basis. I didn’t ignore the “trained” part. I flat out rejected it.

Now, if you will accept a minor change from “trained” to “trainable”, your definition expands to include both classes of the militia as defined in 10USC246, and becomes reasonably close to the constitutional meanings of both “militia” and “the people”.

If you want to suggest that the state-based National Guard should train all adults in “military exercise”, including the responsible operation of firearms, you’ll hear nothing but support from me.

As you have used the term, “adults” is synonymous with the constitutional meaning of “militia”. Any time you read the word “militia” in the constitution, you can substitute the meaning of the word “adults” as you have used that term.

To provide for calling forth the militia adults to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia adults, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia adults according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

…

A [W]ell regulated Militia Adults, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Driver’s Ed is actually a great parallel.

Agreed, but the sine qua non of my driver’s Ed amendment was “squirrels”. In guaranteeing the right to “squirrels” instead of those who will be providing the safe operation of a vehicle, the amendment I provided is nonsensical. The driver’s Ed requirement only makes sense when the right is afforded to the same entity that will be exercising it.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

You invented the “trained” qualification. Pulled it straight out of thin air

I pulled it straight out of the dictionary, where the word “Militia” is defined.

Now, if you will accept a minor change from “trained” to “trainable”, your definition expands to include both classes of the militia as defined in 10USC246, and becomes reasonably close to the constitutional meanings of both “militia” and “the people”.

You’re pulling this straight out of thin air, so I flat out reject it.

This is going nowhere. If the words were synonymous, they wouldn’t have bothered to use the word Militia. Full stop. I’m not going to continue to entertain your fantasies of what the drafters really meant, inventing your own definitions of words that have literal written definitions.

Rivalarrival ,

I pulled it straight out of the dictionary, where the word “Militia” is defined.

And I demonstrated, repeatedly, how that definition is flawed, and does not reflect how the word is used in either the constitution or legislation. Your definition specifically excludes certain individuals that the law (10 USC 246) specifically includes. You have provided no argument as to why 10 USC 246 - an act of Congress - should be rejected, and replaced by the opinion of Mr. Johnson, a private individual.

While you may have other routes forward, the only options I can see to further your argument are to adopt a definition that is not fundamentally incompatible with 10 USC 246, or you can demonstrate that this part of 10 USC is unconstitutional, and incompatible with the constitutional meaning.

Frankly, your best option here is to concede the point.

agamemnonymous , (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

And your interpretation continues to imply that everyone who isn’t a male between 17 and 45, or a female in the National Guard, is not People. You keep dancing around with your definition of Militia while conveniently ignoring that your claim was that Militia = People and the words are interchangeable. That is my sole contention.

You can either concede that your claim was wrong, or you can affirm that you believe that men 17-45 and women in the National Guard are the only citizens who count as People. There is no alternative.

Rivalarrival ,

And your interpretation continues to imply that everyone who isn’t a male between 17 and 45, or a female in the National Guard, is not People.

I have addressed this many, many times.

The constitutional meaning of “militia” is very, very broad. The constitutional meaning of “militia” is so broad that it is effectively synonymous with “the people”. This meaning cannot be changed except through the amendment process.

The legislative meaning of militia is much broader than most people realize, but much narrower than the constitutional meaning. The legislative meaning is codified as 10 USC 246. This meaning can be expanded or shrunk at the will of Congress. It cannot be expanded beyond the Constitutional meaning. Whoever Congress wants to add to the legislative meaning tomorrow was already within the constitutional meaning yesterday.

And just for shits and giggles, there is also Mr. Johnson’s meaning of “militia”, which is narrower than either the Constitutional meaning or the Legislative meaning. It is so narrow that I don’t need to demonstrate the broad constitutional meaning to defeat that claim; I can defeat it even with the narrower (but simpler) legislative meaning.

And just for the sake of completeness, there is also the term “adults” as you have used it above, which is clearly broader than the legislative definition, and seems reasonablyncomparable to both the Constitutional meaning of “militia” and “the people”.

You can either concede that your claim was wrong, or you can affirm that you believe that men 17-45 and women in the National Guard are the only citizens who count as People. There is no alternative.

False dichotomy. An alternative is to demonstrate that your understanding of my claim is faulty. Which it is. You are raising a strawman interpretation of my claim.

My claim is that the constitutional meaning of “militia” is synonymous with “the people”, which is true.

Your strawman interpretation is that the legislative meaning of “militia” is synonymous with “the people”, which is, of course false.

I readily concede that your strawman interpretation is false. Fortunately, the validity of my actual claim is not at all affected by your strawman.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The constitutional meaning of “militia” is very, very broad. The constitutional meaning of “militia” is so broad that it is effectively synonymous with “the people”.

A totally unsubstantiated claim which you have made multiple times with zero evidence.

Dance for someone else, it’s not even entertaining anymore.

Rivalarrival ,

Your own position on training “adults” is all the evidence I need in this debate. I accepted your concession.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Dance dance dance. This was no debate, this was a rich demonstration of your ability to deviate, distract, and entirely miss the point. And you still can’t present a shred of evidence. Clownshow.

Rivalarrival ,

The current legislative definition, and the fact that Congress is free to expand it, gives me everything I need. I don’t even need to resort to the myriad contemporaneous statements by the founding fathers describing the militia as the “yeomanry” or the "whole body of the people.

Your acceptance of a training program that would apply to everyone upon reaching adulthood was an unexpected piece of evidence, but a welcome one.

And, lest we forget, this whole argument rests on the complete lie that the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on militia “service”. It is clearly guaranteed to “the people.”

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

No, this entire argument is based upon the fact that you claimed, and continued to claim, without evidence that Militia and People are constitutionally synonyms. And here again you dance around that nonsense claim, trying to refocus on anything else because, I’ve again, you have absolutely no evidence to support this.

You convincing yourself of this nonsense is not evidence. Your personal interpretations mean exactly nothing to me.

Rivalarrival ,

You don’t seem to be offended by the concept, just the specific vocabulary. Your use of “adults” is perfectly consistent with my meaning and intent.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

But not with what you said, and not with what you’re currently saying.

Personally, I disagree with the definition in 10 USC 246; I believe the “unorganized militia” should still imply training, even though the members may not presently be active members of the National Guard. The right to bear arms should fall under the same kind of regulation as operating a vehicle: subject to training and demonstration of competence. But it is what it is.

But this is all secondary to the core issue of the claim that Militia = People, constitutionally speaking. Again, rectangles and squares. So long as the definition of one excludes some members of the other, no matter how large the subset, they are not synonymous. The specific vocabulary is crucial to legal interpretation, and the central point of my contention.

Rivalarrival ,

So long as the definition of one excludes some members of the other, no matter how large the subset, they are not synonymous

Agreed.

While the legislative definition does this, the constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone. TCase-by-case circumstances might render specific individuals unsuitable for being called forth under the militia clauses, but they are excluded by executive or judicial action, and not by definition. The constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone.

Under the constitutional meaning, the most heinous criminal in death row is still a member of the militia, and can theoretically be called forth, even though no executive officer would ever allow him to serve such a purpose. He is not deprived of the right to keep and bear arms due to not being in the militia. He is “deprived of life, liberty, or property”, including RKBA, through “due process” in accordance with the 5th amendment.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

the constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone

Buddy, you keep just saying that like it’s some b ontological fact. I’ve repeatedly asked you for evidence to support that and you keep shifting focus to avoid doing so.

Until you can provide concrete, tangible evidence to support that interpretation, I’m not interested in hearing anything else. Show me documentation, not just your own assertions. No more dancing.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

10 USC 246 already covers the entire male population (at some point in their lives) as well as some specific females. There is nothing preventing Congress from opening it up to the remaining females. That is concrete, tangible evidence to support my interpretation.

The Federalist Papers, specifically , discuss the militia as being comprised of “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens”. It refers to a “scheme of disciplining the whole nation”

While most of the paper discusses “the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service” (aka: The National guard) it also discusses militia obligations on “the people at large”:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Congress does not see fit to maintain such assemblies today, but they did exist back then, and they could be reinstated at will tomorrow. Any member of the “people at large”, is thus also a member of the militia.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45, these are part of the People who are not legislative Militia. Hypotheticals are not evidence.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative, I’ll draw a further distinction against commentary.

I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation, and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia. If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People, I will promptly concede. But hypotheticals are not evidence.

Rivalarrival ,

10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45,

When you look at their whole lifetime, 10 USC 246 covers all males, and some females. More than 50% of the people.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution.

They are not, but they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.

If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative

Congress is not empowered to alter the meaning of the constitution. If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.

Congress cannot redefine “speech” to mean “feces” and then claim that the first amendment only protects the right to take a shit.

The distinction I draw between legislative and constitutional meanings clearly and directly arises from the limits to Congressional authority. Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of militia; their use of the term “militia” cannot be considered authoritative.

There is no such distinction for the Federalist papers. The same people who wrote the constitution also wrote the Federalist papers. The papers were written for the specific purpose of explaining and promoting the Constitution, by the very people who wrote it. Their explanations in the papers were the basis for the states to ratify the constitution, so even if the authors meant something else (they didn’t), the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.

Basically, your distinction is arbitrary, capricious, and rejected.

I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation

Such discipline is only constitutionally permissible under the Militia clauses.

and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.

That portion being the “whole nation”.

If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People,

What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?

What if Congress found a method by which so many members of the militia would be armed that assembly would not be required to verify?

Congress did establish the Federal Firearm Licensee system, which regulates the commercial sale of firearms to the general public. It can be reasonably argued that the FFL system was enacted but just under their power to regulate interstate commerce, but also under their power to arm the militia.

Does that satisfy your pedantry?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

More than 50% of the people.

Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.

they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.

Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.

If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.

This still does not establish the constitutional meaning. You have notably not provided sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional meaning.

the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.

Correct. The states accepted and ratified the Constitution, not the Federalist Papers.

and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.

That portion being the “whole nation”.

The “whole nation” is not disciplined. I was quite specific: if, and only if, the “whole nation” is disciplined, it is appropriate to consider the “whole nation” to be synonymous with the Militia.

What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?

“Properly” being the functional term here. “Armed and equipped” is not the same as “Properly armed and equipped”.

If you don’t like being held to pedantry, don’t make flippant categorical equivalences of precise legal language.

Rivalarrival ,

Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.

10USC246 is substantially less than 100%, yes.

But, “male” can be dropped from that definition tomorrow. Which means that although females didn’t meet the legislative definition, they did meet the constitutional definition yesterday. They had to, or Congress couldn’t add them to its narrower definition.

Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.

Non sequitur.

This still does not establish the constitutional meaning.

That argument devolves into absurdity. You can make the same argument for each and every word in the constitution. By prohibiting any sort of context by which to derive the meaning of language, not a single word in the constitution has any meaning whatsoever.

It is only through contemporary context that the meaning of a word can be derived, and there is no body of work closer than the Federalist papers by which to gain such context.

Properly" being the functional term here. “Armed and equipped” is not the same as “Properly armed and equipped”.

You shouldn’t have conceded the rest of that and focused on “properly”, because I can accept that condition. I fully agree, “properly” is the functional term.

Article I Section 8 clause 18 empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”

Congress determines the “proper” way to arm and equip the militia, and this is the method they have chosen.

Maggoty ,

Indeed it doesn’t protect hunting or self defence at all. Only the collective defense.

Liz ,

Which arguably makes the AR-15 one of the most protected guns, if we’re using the wording of the second amendment as the only justification for firearms rights.

Maggoty ,

You can do a lot of damage with medium caliber rifles running internal clips. Such a limit would be more than enough for a militia unless everyone is practicing their tactical magazine changes and fireteam movement drills.

Liz ,

What? No it wouldn’t? They hand grunts 30 round magazines for a reason. They used to give them 20 round magazines for the same rifle. Minimizing administrative tasks is good for your soldier.

Maggoty ,

Soldiers are also trained in several different firing modalities that depend on teamwork. Those 30 rounds aren’t there just because “it’s easier”. I would sooner hand a militiaman a bolt action than a 30 round semi/burst capable weapon. They’d be less likely to blow through significant portions of their ammo load just because the wind made a tree creak. And before you say no, remember the cop that unloaded on his own car because of an acorn. We don’t arm units for their best person, we give them the gun that’s good enough for the lowest common denominator. The 2nd amendment doesn’t make everyone a line Infantryman.

Liz ,

The US military would one million percent prefer the population be trained and familiar on the standard issue rifle than on any other platform. (Arguments of the quality training put aside)

Maggoty ,

Then we better start giving everyone burst fire weapons.

No?

The military is just fine with its irregulars using something else. We worked alongside locals running AK platforms for 20 years.

Liz ,

Nobody actually uses burst fire. Does the Spear have burst fire? I haven’t looked too closely because I seriously doubt they’re ever actually going to make it the standard issue rifle.

Maggoty ,

We absolutely used burst fire in Iraq. The M7 is also capable of burst or auto depending on what they put in the trigger group.

Liz ,

Aight, I’ve been told different from other folks who have deployed.

Anyway, this conversation is way off the rails. The point being that, if you consider the original intent of the 2nd amendment to be the only thing protecting a citizen’s access to firearms, it would be much more correct to say the standard issue rifle would be the most protected firearm than any other.

Maggoty ,

I can show you video.

At any rate if you want to talk about standard issue, what’s wrong with a modified M1a Springfield that runs an internal clip instead of a magazine? Given the choice I’d give militia men a bolt action over an M7 but there’s no reason we can’t go in the middle.

The major issue with mass casualty shootings is the ammunition availability. And that’s the problem everyone wants to solve. We could also go all in on red flag laws, fixing the NICS loopholes, and universal background checks. And if those work then we don’t need to do anything with magazines. There’s really a few paths available here, but if the NRA and friends keep putting a stop to any reform at all then they’re all going to happen at once.

Liz ,

Oh, no, it’s not that I don’t believe you. Just sounds like there’s different opinions within the military on the usefulness of burst fire.

The M1a Springfield uses a totally different manual of arms than the M4/M16, especially when you fix the magazine.

If we’re trying to square the 2nd amendment with reducing mass shootings (a very small but spectacular number of gun deaths) everything you listed would improve the situation slightly and there’s little reason why we shouldn’t have them. I’d throw in a storage requirement requiring guns and ammo be kept behind a lock. But mass shootings are much more of a social phenomenon than anything else. We’ve had access to capable guns for a very long time and mass shootings only became a thing in the 90s. That is, it’s not inherit to humanity, it’s cultural. (This should be further evidenced by the fact that they’re all done by white guys.)

Now, that sounds like a cop-out, but it’s not. It’s saying that we know we can have a society with guns and without mass shootings because we used to have exactly that. Well, what did we have then that we don’t have now? Lower inequality, higher union representation, more accessible housing, less media saturation, higher minimum wage, fewer monopolies, etc. I would suggest reading Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel to get an idea of the kind of person and situation that produces mass shootings. There’s a racial component to it that won’t (and shouldn’t) change, but so much about our economic and social situation can change to get rid of mass shootings. Heck, even just Medicare for All would have a big impact, since it would make counseling free and accessible. Plus, all these social changes would have an even bigger impact in the other major areas of gun deaths, murders and suicides.

Maggoty ,

We’ve had access to capable guns for a very long time and mass shootings only became a thing in the 90s.

Dude, don’t. This took 2 seconds to find. There’s more that I’m aware of just from memory too. Also, the white guys thing.

The manual of arms being different isn’t a big a deal. We train people on everything between pistols and belt fed machineguns. There’s no reason to expect the manual of arms would be a large barrier to an actual militia fighting alongside the military. In fact standardizing an official “militia rifle” would help prevent people from showing up with 4 or 5 distinct modes of firearm.

I actually agree about the social problems leading to a larger number of events. But that’s not working, it sounds like a cop out because that’s how it’s been used. And in the reality of things, toys get taken away when we can’t responsibly use them. For the large majority of people that’s all an AR-15 is, an expensive toy. If we can’t treat them seriously then the kids are going to grow up to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all civilian guns. We’ve had them running duck and cover style drills for most of their lives and that’s coming home to roost.

So rather than throw this off on the traditional cop out, even if we admit it’s been used that way, we need to figure something out if we want to still have a 2nd amendment in 10-20 years. And I think the two best ways to do that are to define a low capacity rifle with internal magazine as the militia weapon we can have personally or to treat rifles with external magazines as military rifles that live in lock up until your scheduled range day or training weekend with a local reserve unit.

Liz ,

Dude, don’t. This took 2 seconds to find. There’s more that I’m aware of just from memory too. Also, the white guys thing.

Individual counter examples do not negate trend lines and you know it. I’ll try to come back later when I’m on my computer and link a few government reports that clearly demonstrate the mass shooter phenomenon as we know it properly started in the 90s. I don’t have the documents on my phone and I don’t remember the titles so I can’t Google them.

I don’t consider fixing systemic issues in society to be a cop-out. I genuinely want to do all of those changes and more. There’s plenty of people who would consider suggesting gun law reform a cop-out, since it’s equally as unlikely to pass. Biden just suggested we bring back the assault weapons ban for the 70th time in his presidency (that’s the actual number), so you can judge how well that’s going.

Maggoty ,

I’d love to solve those issues. I’m just being real about what’s likely to happen first. Rich people stop extracting wealth from our literal health and sanity or we ban guns because there was never any good faith conversation on reform.

I know where my money is and I’d like to avoid that and the political violence I’m pretty sure the losing third would enact over it.

monsterpiece42 ,

Intent isn’t started. It says the state gets guns (a militia) so the people get guns too.

Not saying you need to agree with the sentiment, but grammatically that is what it says.

InverseParallax ,

That’s absolutely the opposite of what it says.

It says the states, specifically, must have armed citizens to prevent a tyrannical federal government:

. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.‘’

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

By keeping the army, or ‘militia’ under the sole control of the states, it guaranteed the states were never disarmed and could effectively resist or even attempt secession if they saw fit. Which, in fact, was later tried.

Until the 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government, and in fact strict gun laws and bans were common throughout the 18th century.

monsterpiece42 ,

I’m not going to debate an amateur (as an amateur to be fair) about something that already has a ruling. In 2008, DC v. Heller ruled that the ownership of firearms included the purpose of self defense independent of anything to do with a militia. Link

That said, the federalist paper you linked made a great case for a militia but did not talk about the People’s right to bear arms. It was also written 4 whole years before the 2nd amendment was ratified so using as an interpretation tool is not adequate. Similarly, it would make sense to me that if firearm bans were common throughout the 1700s, that in 1792 they would pass an amendment to counter that if they didn’t like it…

I don’t have in-depth knowledge about the 14th amendment and I don’t have time to look right now so I’ll ask… what/how does the 14th amendment have/do that implies an amendment which specifically states “The People” (a protected term, such as in "We The People), did not apply to The People? Federal or not, the meaning is the same. Unless I’m missing something.

FartsWithAnAccent ,
@FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io avatar

They are good hunting rifles for feral hogs actually, 30 round mags included.

Plus, banning certain magazine sizes or particular models of rifle isn't really going to fix anything, but things like universal background checks would probably help.

ulkesh ,
@ulkesh@beehaw.org avatar

And they’re apparently good for hunting the elusive unarmed school children in the middle of class. 30 round mags included!

FartsWithAnAccent ,
@FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io avatar

So would any number of other rifles, handguns, and/or shotguns. Focusing on a single rifle is pointless.

Rivalarrival ,

Truly “Universal” background checks are just a way of criminalizing the overwhelming majority of “transfers” between known and trusted parties. We don’t need this sort of “universal” background check. This approach is only intended to cast FUD on ownership.

The current law basically says it is illegal to “knowingly” transfer a gun to a prohibited person. The problem is that there is no reliable, publicly-accessible means for a private individual to “know” that an individual is prohibited. NICS checks are not available to the public; they are only available to FFL dealers. So long as the recipient doesn’t disclose their prohibited status, it is basically impossible to prove a private seller “knew” the buyer was prohibited.

The solution should be obvious: establish a means of publicly accessing NICS. Have the buyer perform a check in themselves, and provide the seller with a verification code to securely and confidentially access the results of that check.

With that access in place, a seller can know, and can legally be expected to know the status of a buyer. The “knowingly” criteria can now be presumed to have been met, and willful ignorance on the part of the seller is no longer a viable defense.

This approach makes it possible to prosecute 100% of private sellers who transfer to felons, without criminalizing any innocent transfers. It accomplishes every legitimate purpose of “universal” background checks, without any of the harmful, “unintended” FUD that truly universal checks would impose.

JillyB ,

I’ve heard a lot of terrible takes when it comes to the gun control debate. But this might be the first well thought out proposal I’ve heard.

Maggoty ,

Nope. Because you can know and trust that felon white supremacist militia man all day. The rest of us would very much like to prevent them from getting a gun ever again. And the honesty system obviously isn’t working.

Hoping people just use the system isn’t any better either.

Requiring an FFL to be part of all transfers and keeping the records solves this. And black helicopter paranoia isn’t a good reason to not do it.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

Nope. Because you can know and trust that felon white supremacist

If I handed a gun to that individual today, without knowing he was a felon, I would be exonerated: I didn’t know.

If I did it tomorrow, after NICS checks are made available to the public, I would be convicted: I should have known. My claim of ignorance no longer exonerates me. My claim of ignorance is now an admission of guilt: I could have known, I should have known, I was responsible for knowing, and I failed to perform my due diligence and duty.

Requiring an FFL to be part of all transfers and keeping the records solves th

Define “transfer”.

When my neighbor says he’s feeling low and needs me to take custody of his guns for awhile, does he need to conduct a background check to give them to me? Or can I walk over and take care of them? If I am injured in a car crash, can I hand my gun to my sister before the ambulance takes me to the hospital?

My brother and I both have Glock 17 handguns. We used them at the range. A few weeks later, I looked at the serial number on my gun and realized we had swapped them. Should we both be jailed?

The punishment for violating this “universal” background check requirement is going to have to be a simple fine at most; anything more is going to be an egregious miscarriage of justice in all of these cases and in virtually every scenario in which it could be applied. It will be treated about the same as failing to renew a driver’s license or vehicle registration; a purely administrative offense.

Zoot ,
@Zoot@reddthat.com avatar

Your mentality of treating guns as “NBD” is the real issue here. Guns have been dumbed down and ingrained so heavily into our society, that you almost jokingly say how you “switched guns at one point”.

All of that absolutely should be illegal. And we shouldn’t be so careless with our weapons, as you make it sound so normal to have done.

Rivalarrival ,

You’re going to have to explain how my brother’s Glock 17 is somehow a significant threat to public safety in my hands, while my own Glock 17 is perfectly safe.

While you’re contemplating that, try this one on for size: under a “universal” system, a felon in possession of a gun cannot be charged for transferring to another felon. There is case law on this point, relating to felons failing to register firearms. The state cannot compel an individual to admit to or to commit a crime. Requiring FFL involvement constitutes either self incrimination or entrapment should the felon attempt to make the transfer through them, so he cannot be prosecuted for failing to use one.

Under my scheme, however, the seller’s status is entirely irrelevant. The state merely needs to prove the seller made the transfer and the buyer was prohibited. The seller could know, and should know the buyer’s status, and is criminally liable for not checking. A felon-seller can be charged both for simple possession and for transferring to another felon.

Zoot ,
@Zoot@reddthat.com avatar

The danger is you being so non-chalant about your weapons that you do not realize you have just swapped them. There are a billion scenarios in which doing so gets you arrested even today with current laws.

You can act as tough and mighty as you’d like, but viewing guns in this way, and acting so non-chalant about them is how people get killed.

Rivalarrival ,

There are a billion scenarios in which doing so gets you arrested even today with current laws.

There probably are. But that wasn’t the question. The question was about the danger to the public in this specific scenario. The only difference is the serial number. What significantly greater danger is the public in from the differing inscriptions stamped into our receivers?

The correct and obvious answer is, of course, “none at all”, which is why I raised the point to begin with. The fact that I could be “arrested even today with current laws” demonstrates that such laws are not actually enhancing public safety, and should be adjusted so that they don’t criminalize completely inoffensive acts.

daltotron ,

Ayaaa, we had a conversation a while ago about this same topic. I do think you are still correct in your proposal to make NICS public, but I do also think that the other guy is perhaps partially right. I think such a law would probably be well-accompanied by requirements to own a gun safe (which might be seen as increasing the cost of ownership and thus discriminating and yadda yadda yadda shit I don’t care about), and to keep guns in said gun safe when perhaps they’re not being kept immediately on your person barring extraneous circumstances. I can’t quite recall, but I do believe we also talked about that last time, that there was a kind of need for common sense pertaining to the handling of guns, more than there is, considering how many guns are overwhelmingly passed into illegal uses through relatively simple theft.

I’m also not sure I agree that a violation of the background check, being a fine, is going to have much of an effect. If the fine is cheap enough, that might well enough be just free license to pass guns into an illegal domain and then pay the fine and go about your day. It may increase the costs of illegal firearms well enough which might have knock-on effects in decreasing illegal access to and usage of guns, and what have you, but I think it would probably require a more severe punishment than a fine a la a traffic ticket.

But then, maybe if that’s the metaphor we’re using, then along the lines of traffic tickets, maybe we should just be, uhh, designing the roads differently, whatever that equivalent might look like for guns, but I think that might be stretching the metaphor a little too much.

Maggoty ,

And how is the government going to know you handed them the gun?

The guns go to an FFL for storage. And if you can’t keep track of your guns then they should absolutely be removed from you. Get a paint marker if you need to. It’s what the Army does.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

What public safety concern are you mitigating in any of the scenarios I described? What impediments to public safety are you creating when you impose your mandates?

How do the guns get to the FFL? If I take them, the transfer has already occurred. The only available method with a “universal” system is for my neighbor to take them himself.

Maggoty ,

Yes, that’s the idea. If your neighbor wants to give you guns, they take them to an FFL and then you pick them up after the FFL runs your background check. Or the FFL can just store them. At no point should guns transfer between people without a record that is permanently kept.

And the problem with what you’re suggesting is if you give your guns to Billy Bob the terrorist, and he never tells anyone where he got them from then you aren’t even getting a knock at the door. There’s not even a case for you to defend yourself in. If you happen to have a particularly new gun which still has records then you can just say you “lost it” which is another loophole we need to fix. Losing a gun needs to be a crime that results in forfeiting the right to own guns.

This blasé attitude about guns for the sake of preventing a hypothetical tyrannical crack down needs to die and never be brought back.

Rivalarrival ,

Do me a favor and run your little plan by a mental health professional, a social worker, a paramedic, a 14-year-old babysitter… The moment you left those guns in the hands of my emotionally distraught neighbor for even a second after he asked for help, you lost this particular argument.

There are decent arguments for a UBC; you’re not making them. You should be focusing on what few public safety benefits would actually arise. You should be drawing attention away from the myriad administrative clusterfuck issues where UBCs fail, and toward those few scenarios where UBCs would actually benefit public safety. You should be conceding that “Universal” is completely impractical. You should be pointing out that none of the proposed "U"BC plans have ever actually been truly “U”, and that all of them have included broad exceptions in a (piss-poor) attempt to avoid many of the problems I’ve described.

Maggoty ,

No. If they want to surrender their firearms they can do so to an FFL or a police station. I’m very familiar with mental health stuff and having access to the guns in any way shape or form is extremely dangerous. That includes at places you frequent. The option is not, you taking them or nothing. Load them all in your car with your buddy and drive down to the local range. Arrange for storage there and leave them in the storage.

If you want to have guns you have to have the responsibility too. Kid time with the deadly weapons is over.

Rivalarrival ,

you want to have guns you have to have the responsibility too.

No, you don’t get to make that argument. Not after you try to make me a criminal for trying to take such responsibility. You’re continuing to make the same mistakes. Argue better.

Maggoty ,

You’re not a criminal for doing that under the current laws. And I straight up gave you the answer to the quiz for when it happens under UBC. You’re just trying to be outraged at this point.

Rivalarrival ,

Outraged? Nah. Bored. After you murdered your own argument, I’ve got nothing left to do but play sudoku, jerk off, and fall asleep.

Maggoty ,

Sure, and yet, here you are.

daltotron ,

Also, why can’t you just take your friend, friend’s guns, in your car, to the range, store them there? is there any real problem with that, or any real reason why you specifically need to have the guns rather than the range, which might be a better long term storage solution? I’m not opposed to your solution, I think it’s workable, I think it has potential to, maybe not get passed federally since the gun lobby is insanely powerful, but maybe work on a state-by-state basis, right, and build up from there. But if you do have an actual counterargument for what the guy’s saying, then you should give it instead of just kind of deflecting, because right now he does seem to have basically refuted all of the hypotheticals you were able to give about why requiring some kind of record every time a gun is transferred is a bad idea, and why universal background checks and the state as an active third party rather than a retroactive third party might be a good idea.

The only counterargument I can really see against it is maybe that it would result in state overreach or people being prevented from having access to guns if we start to see disproportionate enforcement of crimes and certain crimes being reclassified as felonies or something, but that’s also a problem with the current system that wouldn’t really get solved by your proposal at all, so yeah, I dunno.

Jumpingspiderman ,

TBH, I would not trust a .223 to take down a hog intent on fucking me up. If feral hogs were a threat, I’d want a semi-auto .308 or similar larger more powerful round.

FartsWithAnAccent ,
@FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io avatar

10mm carbine would be good too if they aren't too far, but most farmers tend to hunt them from relative safety in a stand or even from a helicopter sometimes: 5.56 is a popular choice but that might be in part because it's pretty ubiquitous in the states.

anachronist ,

Everyone’s saying the guy used an AR but given the relatively small number of shots and the fact that the bullets went everywhere except where the guy was presumably aiming my bet is he was a Socialist Rifle Club guy with an SKS.

Restaldt , (edited )

No… it was an AR with no scope fired from the prone position by someone who definitely was not trained to land shots precisely at that range from that shooting position in a highly tense unsurviveable situation again all without a fucking scope

Tmz had a video of the moron opening fire and getting counter sniped

Pandantic ,
@Pandantic@midwest.social avatar

Was it a camera phone video from the crowd? I saw where one guy said they tried to warn the SS because they saw the shooter.

ouRKaoS ,

So he basically thought he was going to 360 No-scope IRL?

…get wrecked, noob.

Maggoty ,

It’s not nearly that hard. To put it into game terms he tried to use the grenade launcher without any practice.

Rivalarrival ,

He certainly was not trained to aim center mass.

Grayox OP ,
@Grayox@lemmy.ml avatar

He didn’t even have an optic?!? What an absolute idiot… haven’t seen that video yet.

Maggoty ,

I mean… At the risk of landing on a list… Any infantry private could have landed that shot.

But if I were to do it it would be a larger round that’s more resistant to the wind, capable of penetrating the light body armor the secret service wears, and from about 3 times the distance with 6x optics. There’s at least a chance to E&E from that position and the likelihood of a kill shot is far higher.

Jumpingspiderman ,

He was mentally deranged. That’s the sort of half-assery typical of people with mental problems.

Jumpingspiderman ,

Turns out you’re wrong. It was a registered GOPer with an AR15 who also had bomb making stuff at home.

anachronist ,

Ar-15s are potentially ok hunting rifles for large birds and small mammals although there are better options out there.

The main argument I’ve heard for an AR besides the larp thing is that it’s easy to find compatible accessories because it’s a popular “open source” common platform.

But honestly any hunter who is serious about hunting with .223 probably has a better gun that they hunt with.

CableMonster ,

Its also cheap and can be handled by most people of all sizes. Its probably the best overall gun to own for most purposes.

AhismaMiasma ,

Assuming proper training and ammunition, they’re perfectly capable for hunting small to medium game such as rabbits, coyotes, tyrants, wild hogs, and whitetail deer.

nondescripthandle , (edited )

I don’t think some people know how much damage a pack of wild hogs can cause to crops and farmland in short order. If it wasn’t going to be an AR-15 keeping them off the farm it would be another intermediate or higher caliber semi-automatic rifle that accepts standard magazines. Everyone want’s to laugh at that excuse until the farmer has a bad season and has to sell his land to Bill Gates or Chinese investors, they don’t exactly make large margins.

Greg ,
@Greg@lemmy.ca avatar

The magazine capacity is an issue though. The standard 30 round mag is far to large for any realistic hunting purposes (you can also get up to 100 round drum mags). While you can hunt with an AR-15, it’s not the best rifle for the task.
I live in Canada and the government is in the process of banning semi-automatic centre fire rifles capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Given that 3D printers exist, this pretty much bans all rifles with interchangeable mags. I’m a gun owner on a rural property and I think that’s a reasonable compromise. I can still own a decent bolt action hunting rifle and a semi-automatic rim fire rifle with no mag limit.
It does suck for people who’s rifles are getting banned though.

Dettweiler42 ,

You’ve obviously never been surrounded by a pack of coyotes or hogs.
.223 is also an excellent caliber for that size game.

Transporter_Room_3 ,
@Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website avatar

Anecdote time!

I was once semi-surrounded by coyotes while hiking in some back country with a friend.

I did not have anything except my camping knives and a very small axe for splitting kindling.

My buddy had a compact 9mm in his waistband.

Honestly, I can say an AR would not have made me feel safer. A larger capacity on my sidearm, on the other hand, would. The AR is just too bulky to move quickly in close quarters.

Luckily a single round to the trailside was enough to scare them off, since yelling and throwing things wasn’t. We then ran/sprinted a few miles down the trail toward the vehicle before we even considered slowing down.

Not many situations in which either one is something I’m desiring though, and while I’m not a fan of limiting people, I can’t say I’ve ever needed 30rds at once. Honestly, I buy 10rd mags just because they fit very nicely in some cases I already had, and the 30rds don’t.

Rambling anecdotes over, have a nice day!

Hathaway , (edited )

Anecdote time! I went to infantry basic training and we were told over and over again, if you have to draw your sidearm, you’re dead. The AR absolutely is not too bulky for close quarters and I would feel much better with one on my hand than anything else. The US army has murdered a lot of people with M4 rifles in CQC. (My politics don’t align with a stereotype of a former infantryman. Please do not assume too much)

In either situation, with adrenaline, good luck getting shots on target.

Hmm, I don’t understand the downvotes but okay lmao I’m sorry that the AR platform is actually fine in close quarters?

daltotron ,

I think it’s probably that your anecdote and experience is kind of out of left field considering this guy was only dealing with a couple coyotes, and honestly you probably don’t even need a gun in that circumstance, and I don’t think you’d much need anything larger than pistol-caliber.

Hmm, I don’t understand the downvotes but okay lmao I’m sorry that the AR platform is actually fine in close quarters?

As far as I understand it, the main problem people have with it, which they also have with pretty much every gun larger than a foot or so, so most guns, is that you can’t really cross a threshold horizontally. About the only thing that could qualify against that maybe is like, a pistol or one of those shotguns with a bird’s head grip, or like, some smaller pdw or something. I also dunno how much of a problem that is, of, oh it’s gonna snag on something, or whatever, right, I guess it’s just the idea it’s going to present a higher snag risk or something when turning around, or, when getting up to a ready position? I dunno I’m not a gun nut.

I think it probably also isn’t helped by the increasing consumerist trend to load up their guns with more and more extraneous shit and go for longer and longer rifles on their AR platforms to try and increase accuracy on the range, which means they tend to conceptualize of them as being unsuitable for close quarters despite that kind of being the idea of an intermediate cartridge and all that. It also doesn’t really help to cite our military engagements with it considering over the last like 3 decades of the rifle’s service we’ve mostly only fought like, random middle eastern terrorist organizations that don’t have a great reputation for good training or good equipment or anything like that. You could maybe look at uses of the rifle by other organizations like the IRA or whatever, but I don’t think they had any close quarters engagements.

Hathaway , (edited )

Most of this comment is out of left field. Wow. Uh.

Dealing with a couple coyotes. Honestly probably didn’t need a gun.

This study shows coyotes predate on humans up to 37% of known attacks. That person was fortunate to have a firearm.

Dude said he wouldn’t feel better with a rifle, well, from his personal anecdote, to mine, I would. I am much more likely to be accidentally shot by my friend with the handgun imo.

I don’t know how much of a problem that is, oh and it’s going to snag on something. I’m not a gun nut.

Your lack of experience is obvious. I’m not going to go into all the reasons you can clear buildings and rooms without reaching for a handgun, as muzzle discipline and accuracy become exponentially more difficult. There’s a reason SWAT breaches with rifles and not handguns, well, them and any one else that has quick access to a rifle in the situation.

consumerist trend to load up guns with extraneous shit and go for longer and longer guns.

I work at a gun store, that’s simply not true. SBRs and AR pistols exist and are extremely popular.

don’t compare what we did to terrorists, look at the IRA.

right, or the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Or the literal decades of combat US special operators have with the platform since Vietnam, or any other of its long, violent life. Or you can ask any of these countries, or, look into any of these use cases

Maybe don’t chime in on things you’re absolutely clueless on? I’m trying to figure out how to put this somewhat nicely but you clearly have some misguided thoughts here. And none of this comment has anything to do with the fact that, if surrounded by a pack of hungry animals, I want an AR-style rifle personally.

Maggoty ,

Coyotes? Literally just shout at them. They’re scavengers not fighters.

Dettweiler42 , (edited )

In the late Winter/early spring they start getting a bit braver and start moving further into the cow pastures. That’s when we have to cull the pack to keep them away from the cattle.

Maggoty ,

Oh yeah, I thought you meant in regards to humans. I’ve never seen a coyote so much as growl at a human without a cub nearby.

Dettweiler42 ,

They will definitely come after humans if they are hungry enough and their pack is large enough. It’s around that season that they start getting a bit braver because they are hungry coming out of winter and it’s breeding season. Usually they run after the first shot, but sometimes they don’t notice you dropped one and they keep coming until the follow-up shots. It’s not out of the ordinary to bag multiple coyotes in one spot.

Maggoty ,

Maybe I’ve just never had a pack big enough and hungry enough, but I live out west and I’ve never seen them be aggressive towards humans. Even when they got into my camp once, the second I sat up out of my sleeping bag they scattered.

Dkarma ,

5 rounds for a pack of dogs or pigs??? Ok buddy 🙄

anachronist , (edited )

In the arctic standard bear protection is a five shot bolt action 30.06. You’d load them with three FMJs to scare the bear away and two hollow points in case that didn’t work.

The truth about predators is they aren’t interested in dying for their meals. Prove to them that approaching will be deadly to them and they won’t approach. You don’t have to kill the entire pack, you just have to kill or wound one, or even just blast some rocks in their path.

Maggoty ,

Honestly external magazines need to just be banned. That way it’s immediately clear a rifle is legal or not. It’s also great for hunting still, and okay for self/collective defense. But not great as a mass casualty producer.

Jumpingspiderman ,

Wait til you get those fucking murder hogs up there.

Schadrach ,

While you can hunt with an AR-15, it’s not the best rifle for the task.

It’s not the best rifle for any task. But it’s a good enough rifle for most tasks, and between real AR-15s and the various clones they are cheap, in common calibers, and have accessories widely available.

Which is why it’s the most common rifle in the US by a fair margin.

It being the most common rifle in the US by a fair margin is in turn why it’s so often used in public mass shootings, as those are usually done with weapons of convenience rather than something bought for purpose. Likely also why the guy who shot Trump used one.

If a public mass shooter wanted the best gun for the job, they’d get something closer to a PS-90 (the civilian version of the P-90 which is a military rifle designed for urban combat).

mojofrododojo ,

If a public mass shooter wanted the best gun for the job, they’d get something closer to a PS-90 (the civilian version of the P-90 which is a military rifle designed for urban combat).

You’re neglecting the fact that mass shooters are murderers, so close combat isn’t their thing - and the best gun for the job has already been shown - ar15-style rifles - 14!! - with drum mags and bump stocks:

On October 1, 2017, a mass shooting occurred when 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada from his 32nd-floor suites in the Mandalay Bay hotel. He fired more than 1,000 rounds, killing 60 people[a] and wounding at least 413. The ensuing panic brought the total number of injured to approximately 867. About an hour later, he was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

John_McMurray ,

That’s a lie. Anyone familiar with guns knows he had a machine gun up there.

mojofrododojo ,

That’s a lie. Anyone familiar with guns knows he had a machine gun up there.

roflwhat?

this is such a silly response I can’t even.

he purchased 24 firearms over the course of years. Most were AR types - 14 .223 ar15 patterns but also AR-10s and a .308 bolt action.

you could argue he made them machine-gun like with the c-mags and bump stocks; as the shooting went on his firing came in longer and longer bursts, 90+ rounds - but there were no ‘machine guns’ in the ATF tax stamp sense.

Just stupid american laws crafted by idiot politicians owned by the gun lobby allowing civilians to approximate a half ass version that’s basically only effective for murdering unarmed civilians. A real machine gun is belt or box fed, has changeable barrels, a tripod or bipod with T&E, an AG…

John_McMurray ,

Yeah I watched the video. That weren’t what they said.

mojofrododojo ,

Yeah I watched the video.

??

what fucking video?

That weren’t what they said.

jfc pardner, did you learn to speak english at the podunk u school of cowpunching?

you’re a human waste of my time. gonna block you now, you’re either too dumb or too delusional.

John_McMurray ,

There’s literally video of the Mandalay bay shooting. You know how to google shit, right? And yeah, I am a cowboy from the middle of fucking nowhere. I know what I’m talking bout comes to guns.

mojofrododojo ,

you don’t know a smoothbore from your asshole

WATCH THE VIDEOS AND BE AMAZED: they weren’t fucking machine guns, they were propelled to those rates of fire with bumpstocks, you goddamn bellend. that’s why prior service people like myself, who have been around machine guns IN REAL FUCKIN LIFE, understand there’s no good reason for civilians to have them and devices like crank triggers and bumpstocks that approximate their rate of fire are fucking stupid and evil.

John_McMurray ,

You’re a fucking idiot, dude. And see through as hell. You’ve not done any of that. Larping a character to push an agenda.

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

We cleaned about 250 boar out of our farm over a four year period with the same 3-5 shot rifles we hunt deer and moose with. They mill around long enough you can reload. I have an SKS but I don’t bother, I’d rather sneak over a hill and pop half a dozen slowly and cleanly with my .338. And I can do it from far enough away that they don’t really get upset until 3 of them are lying on the ground, kicking.

anachronist , (edited )

You’d really want something bigger for hogs and deer. Never known anyone who hunts deer with .223. You really want one of options in thirty caliber.

While I’m sure someone hunts rabbits with a rifle you’d really use a shotgun or a really small rifle for them.

.223 is a good coyote round though. There are better coyote rounds available and there are better coyote rifles in .223.

ouRKaoS ,

.300 Blackout for hogs.

You can get an AR-15 chambered for this, or easily swap a few parts if you already have one.

AR-15’s are popular because it’s an easily modifiable platform. It’s not the best for any one thing, but it’s pretty good at a variety.

LordCrom ,

Actually, are we allowed to shoot coyotes in the city limits? Alligators are mostly chill and will just take off, but coyotes hunt around at night here.

bloodfart ,

I’ve taken deer with 556. Even if I hadn’t, I know people do because all the heavy loads sell out around deer season.

Reverendender ,

There’s nothing like some good tyrant jerky

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

i was under the assumption an ar15 would explode something like a rabbit without useable trace?

frezik ,

Nah, it’s a small round as rifles go. “High powered military rifle” is a complete misnomer.

nickwitha_k ,

The likely issue there is less the size of the round and more the impact of the pressure wave on tissue. Body shots with a standard high-powered rifle round may not leave much useable meat on something the size of a rabbit.

frezik ,

Yeah, if you want meat. Farmers usually want to control rabbits from eating everything else.

DudeImMacGyver ,
@DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works avatar

5.56 is a waste of money for rabbits though

DudeImMacGyver ,
@DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works avatar

A small round traveling really fast can do a lot of damage, not a great round for small game - stick to .22 or birdshot.

DudeImMacGyver ,
@DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works avatar

…rabbits?

AhismaMiasma ,

Yup. Shot placement is key if you’re looking to feed yourself.

DudeImMacGyver ,
@DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works avatar

5.56 is a ridiculous waste of money for rabbits and totally excessive. 22 or even a pellet gun would be perfectly adequate and waaaaaay cheaper.

Purplehair____69 ,
@Purplehair____69@welppp.com avatar

They’re school rifles

Grayox OP ,
@Grayox@lemmy.ml avatar

For the record I would rather 45 lose and continue to drag the GOP down than have a quick death.

Transporter_Room_3 ,
@Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website avatar

I’d rather he rots in a state jail for the rest of his life, and give him the same standard of care as every other inmate. No special treatment. If he needs to be put in solitary “for his own protection” then so be it. It’s the system people like him loves to protect.

To be clear, I think the US treatment of prisoners is inhumane and bordering on criminal (and all too often crossing said border) and the whole penal system needs drastic change and made entirely nonprofit, and the constitution needs another Ammendment because the 13th was a mistake.

But that’s not the world we live in, and the people who crafted this world should be forced to live in it.

Grayox OP ,
@Grayox@lemmy.ml avatar

That would be so nice. Wish we focused on rehabilitation instead of retaliation in our criminal justice system. Its such an ass backwards system.

Transporter_Room_3 ,
@Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website avatar

I love seeing prison photos from other countries that show how well prisoners can be treated while still being in prison. Countries with extremely low recidivism.

And there are plenty of people I know who would see that and balk, because “that’s being too soft”

I’ve had people insist that stronger punishment over rehabilitation is what you need, and ignore my bringing up that there’s decades and decades of data that shows otherwise.

At best, the harsh punishments serve as a deterrent to other people doing similar things that might result in similar punishment, but that just creates new and sneaker crimes and criminals. It’s better to rehabilitate, help people turn their poor choices around, and eliminate the cause of the problems that led to the crime in the first place.

But that’s “too much work” so might as well not even try, right? As we all know, the light bulb famously was invented on the first couple tries.

Jumpingspiderman ,

I would prefer Trump to have a long and miserable life in prison. Preferably in an underground cell in SuperMax somewhere. For his own protection of course.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •