2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

All the gun toting militia muh freedomz people I know, couldn't pass the physical to work at McDonalds, let alone serve in the military.

Well friend you could come work out with an almost 60 y.o. gun toter and see if you still feel the same way. Plenty of liberal crybabies wouldn't work at mcdonalds so there's that. Like I said no need to generalize people that don't agree with you, sport

3 minutes ago, greend said:

There was no need for his comment imo. Plenty of "gun toting 2nd amendment crowd" have been pressed into service over the years and have gone. Plenty of "gun toting 2nd amendment crowd" joined voluntarily after 911. 

agreed. 

Funny thing most of these anti gun people really have no clue who owns guns, let alone how surprised they would be to find out how many have concealed carry permits, and just who they are.

I know a bunch of women who CC.  I dont personally, but I know way too many who do. 

Just recently a 16 year old with a stolen hand gun started shooting at rivals inside our local mall, a CC guy stopped him cold. 

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

As far as America needing it's citizens to defend her....Bacarty actually made a great point. In Afghan/Iraq, their hands were tied due to humanitarian concerns. If America is being invaded (which is insanely unlikely, like, even more unlikely than Hurts becoming a good QB), then there won't be humanitarian concerns when it comes to the army protecting the country. America could basically turn any country in the world into glass if it wants to. It's laughable that they could be invaded by boots on the ground, and only saved by gun toting citizens. 

That's just what you Canadians want us to think. Lull us into a false sense of security then all of a sudden BAM... mounties on the white house lawn. 

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

As far as America needing it's citizens to defend her....Bacarty actually made a great point. In Afghan/Iraq, their hands were tied due to humanitarian concerns. If America is being invaded (which is insanely unlikely, like, even more unlikely than Hurts becoming a good QB), then there won't be humanitarian concerns when it comes to the army protecting the country. America could basically turn any country in the world into glass if it wants to. It's laughable that they could be invaded by boots on the ground, and only saved by gun toting citizens. 

UNless of course the Monetary system holding the US together collapses...   WHich is possible

Let’s transition back to the Eagles.

If Jalen Hurts owned a firearm, it would be a:

A.  Howitzer

B. Sniper rifle

C. 45 cal handgun

D. .22

 

6 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Are you referring to 1776? Almost 250 years ago now?

250 years may seem long ago, in the relevance of Societal Human occupation of the Earth, it is just a small amount of time. 

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Couldnt be further from the truth. 

Theres literally millions upon millions of americans waiting for a die to shoot someone and get away with it legally. 

Go look at all the people protecting small businesses last year when the Riots and looting we happening. I mean protests. 

crap, we dont even wait till we're 18 and Kyle Rittenhouse is a legend in more places than not

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-07-12/joining-the-military-doesn-t-appeal-to-enough-young-americans

2 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

As far as America needing it's citizens to defend her....Bacarty actually made a great point. In Afghan/Iraq, their hands were tied due to humanitarian concerns. If America is being invaded (which is insanely unlikely, like, even more unlikely than Hurts becoming a good QB), then there won't be humanitarian concerns when it comes to the army protecting the country. America could basically turn any country in the world into glass if it wants to. It's laughable that they could be invaded by boots on the ground, and only saved by gun toting citizens. 

Do you think Russia's hands were tied too?  What do you think would happen if we shot nukes in today's day and age at an enemy? They would just sit there and take it?  You are delusional if you think that any country that was looking to invade us wouldn't take into consideration the amount of armed citizens we have here.

2 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Let’s transition back to the Eagles.

If Jalen Hurts owned a firearm, it would be a:

A.  Howitzer

B. Sniper rifle

C. 45 cal handgun

D. .22

 

A knife

5 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

agreed. 

Funny thing most of these anti gun people really have no clue who owns guns, let alone how surprised they would be to find out how many have concealed carry permits, and just who they are.

I know a bunch of women who CC.  I dont personally, but I know way too many who do. 

Just recently a 16 year old with a stolen hand gun started shooting at rivals inside our local mall, a CC guy stopped him cold. 

I carry and I'm not afraid to admit that. I hope I never have to use it. But it's there

3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Let’s transition back to the Eagles.

If Jalen Hurts owned a firearm, it would be a:

A.  Howitzer

B. Sniper rifle

C. 45 cal handgun

D. .22

 

4 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Let’s transition back to the Eagles.

If Jalen Hurts owned a firearm, it would be a:

A.  Howitzer

B. Sniper rifle

C. 45 cal handgun

D. .22

 

Daisey bb gun with bent sights

3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Let’s transition back to the Eagles.

If Jalen Hurts owned a firearm, it would be a:

A.  Howitzer

B. Sniper rifle

C. 45 cal handgun

D. .22

 

Dude believes in chemtrails too

16 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

As far as America needing it's citizens to defend her....Bacarty actually made a great point. In Afghan/Iraq, their hands were tied due to humanitarian concerns. If America is being invaded (which is insanely unlikely, like, even more unlikely than Hurts becoming a good QB), then there won't be humanitarian concerns when it comes to the army protecting the country. America could basically turn any country in the world into glass if it wants to. It's laughable that they could be invaded by boots on the ground, and only saved by gun toting citizens. 

But it's the "Red Dawn" fantasy that gun nuts wallow in to feel self-important and validated. Anyone who has been in the military knows exactly what you stated. Take away humanitarian rules and modern weaponry will slaughter individual foot solders. From daisy cutters that will asphyxiate as well as blow you up to modern bunker busters, there is no place to hide if collateral damage is taken off the table. 'Merica is plagued by our hyper-masculine myths of power through the ability to do violence when wronged versus other value systems like "define yourself by the good and hard work you do in this world." I just went to see Dune and every trailer was about super violence and how empowered the characters are with their ability to kill others. This is delusional. How many of us find our power in the world by killing others?

After reading the blog discussion on 2nd amendment 

36 minutes ago, justrelax said:

I highly recommend Jack Rakove's Original Meanings. I acknowledge that it is light on Hurts and Mahomes, but it's pretty solid about the Constitution.

Rakove is my favorite Constitutional historian, most law professors don't know the history and just are BS artists.

That's because even a Yale law degree doesn't teach you how to do good historical research.

28 minutes ago, austinfan said:

It is not "two different thoughts," the first part justifies and explains the second part.

The problem with Scalia "orginalism" is he tried to avoid these issues by focusing only on the text, and not the context. Probably because it was easier to get the results he wanted as an activist judge.

You have to actually read the history of the use and regulation of guns under British law and the emerging colonies.

Militias were almost universal at that time, and outside of cities, able bodied men were often required to serve in a militia.

But the Founding Fathers were also wary of the "mob," which is where the "well regulated" comes from , i.e. under control of the state.

The Bill of Rights tried to balance both individual and State's rights against Federal authority. It was the State regulated militias that were the bulwark against Federal tyranny, not a bunch of self-appointed patriots.

I am not sure that this analysis matters in light of the Court's current make up and Scalia's decision. I don't think Scalia was entirely ahistorical in his approach.  I mean the reality is that it was a complex issue, self-defense and hunting, were definitely concerns of early Americans.  Self-defense was discussed as a purpose of the right in early legal texts addressing the issue. You're right inasmuch as Madison's take in the Federalist papers points to civil militias. Madison talked about them as a guard against federal tyranny.  The source of the amendment was the English Bill of Rights and the right to bear and keep arms was not to an individual but limited by religion, race and class.  I mean ownership meant ownership by white male protestants and often only those who had real property. I don't think they looked at it as a collective right belonging to the state but an individual right to own tied to a community obligation to serve. There is a juxtaposition of the reasoning here in that I don't think Scalia is saying what posters here think.  His discussion of the right to bear arms is limited to a discussion about self-defense.  In fact, he affirms a right to "self-defense" which is different than a right to bear arms to resist tyranny.   He also didn't seek to overturn laws against concealed carry or other state laws regulating hand gun ownership.  I think the case that is there now will either expand or clarify the applicability of Heller and it's about  licensing for concealed carry.    It's clear that Scalia intended limits and acknowledges self-defense is an implied right of the 2nd amendent. It's not clear what those limits may end up being.  

 

 

5 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

After reading the blog discussion on 2nd amendment 

 

4 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

After reading the blog discussion on 2nd amendment 

Frankly I'm offended that the third amendment never gets even a mention

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Frankly I'm offended that the third amendment never gets even a mention

The first amendment affords you the right to discuss the third amendment as much as you'd like.   Have at it!

17 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

As far as America needing it's citizens to defend her....Bacarty actually made a great point. In Afghan/Iraq, their hands were tied due to humanitarian concerns. If America is being invaded (which is insanely unlikely, like, even more unlikely than Hurts becoming a good QB), then there won't be humanitarian concerns when it comes to the army protecting the country. America could basically turn any country in the world into glass if it wants to. It's laughable that they could be invaded by boots on the ground, and only saved by gun toting citizens. 

I think you need to watch Red Dawn my friend because that shows you how the Mexicans and Russians are going to invade us.  I mean what other way could the Russians destroy America. Certainly not by sowing dissent with misinformation on social media and espionage.  I mean you think Americans could really be turned against each other and think we're our own enemies.  That's ridiculous.  

I mean, how rude. 

10 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Dude believes in chemtrails too

EagleVA is starting a IWTETG thread on Rodgers now

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

I mean, how rude. 

Not rude. Get off my lawn. 

10 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Yep. Too many bad people in the world. Especially in this country (which is another long controversial issue)

Yup your neighbor is not to be trusted.  Probably wants you to get vaccinated.