Why is Seek Outside giving gun control advocate Ryan Busse air time?

[WMR]

Does the well regulated militia part of 2A just carry no meaning whatsoever to all of the people here that are “outraged” about this. Legitimately curious, not asking for a friend.

Please research this yourself for the historical context. You’ll learn something and hopefully become less smug.

 

[ramsdude47]

I was talking more about the well regulated part than the militia part, but thanks I will have to read more about that.

I think education on both sides of the issue is more valuable than bickering and berating.

 

[sacklunch]

Does the well regulated militia part of 2A just carry no meaning whatsoever to all of the people here that are “outraged” about this. Legitimately curious, not asking for a friend.

I think if you'd have finished reading the entire sentence, you may have answered your own question.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[ramsdude47]

That would be the cherry picking, AKA the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

You choose to disregard the first half of the sentence for what reason?

 

[gabenzeke]

Does the well regulated militia part of 2A just carry no meaning whatsoever to all of the people here that are “outraged” about this. Legitimately curious, not asking for a friend.

First, regulated in this context at that time meant in working order. But that's a moot point. Even if it meant governed by a bunch of laws, it would apply to the militia. The key part of the amendment is "the people" as in....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's often easier to make this point by changing the subject matter. A complete balanced breakfast being a necessary start to the day, the right of the people to keep and bear food shall not be infringed. Who has a right to food? A balanced breakfast or the people?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[fwafwow]

That would be the cherry picking, AKA the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

You choose to disregard the first half of the sentence for what reason?

I think it’s grammar, as @gabenzeke pointed out. I also think this point you are putting forward has been debated for many years. And Heller

 

[sacklunch]

That would be the cherry picking, AKA the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

You choose to disregard the first half of the sentence for what

Ask yourself this, who comprised "the militias" in the Revolutionary War? Private citizens. They are one in the same.

 

[Traveler]

Please mods please, for the love of the bill of rights…let this thread be locked and end with the right to breakfast food not being infringed

 

[CTobias]

That would be the cherry picking, AKA the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

You choose to disregard the first half of the sentence for what reason?

As I stated before, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this in DC Vs Heller.

At this point you’re just reemphasizing the fact that you have no clue what you’re even talking about.

 

[WMR]

I was talking more about the well regulated part than the militia part, but thanks I will have to read more about that.

I think education on both sides of the issue is more valuable than bickering and berating.

As others have said, we’ll regulated meant ready to fight. Nothing to do with outside control. Lots of other anti gunners have whiffed on this point as well.

 

[ODB]

First, regulated in this context at that time meant in working order. But that's a moot point. Even if it meant governed by a bunch of laws, it would apply to the militia. The key part of the amendment is "the people" as in....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's often easier to make this point by changing the subject matter. A complete balanced breakfast being a necessary start to the day, the right of the people to keep and bear food shall not be infringed. Who has a right to food? A balanced breakfast or the people?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Correct. If anything was to be 'regulated' it was the militia. The militia was THE PEOPLE! Ownership of arms was an effing GIVEN! Note the 2A says 'shall KEEP and bear arms" not 'shall BE ISSSUED and bear arms,' There was simply NO precedent of restricting people, as in you and me, from KEEPING arms. If there was, there would have been s statute.

People who are confused by the 2A have generally NEVER read the declaration of independence. that lays out the specific reasons WHY the amendments are as they are.

 

[ThorM465]

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this in District Of Columbia VS. Heller. You don’t have to be “legitimately curious”, when you can research case law yourself.

“Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”

Yet again, a bunch of jack wagons in robes got it wrong. This ruling was antithetical to our form of government and how it was formed. This ruling assumes that the Constitution gives me or defines my Rights. The Constitution does neither.

Our Right to Life (self preservation & property e.g., gun ownership) precedes the Constitution (the document that takes Rights from the Individual and gives powers to the state). The 2nd Amendment explicitly denies the state the power to regulate weapons of war. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[buffsmoker]

Always thought this summed it up pretty well.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[WMR]

FWIW, I’ve been a SO fanboy. My tipi has kept us safe and dry in some dangerous weather. I’ve been considering buying another of their tents. I’ll research this further but will not do business with a company owned by someone who actively opposes freedoms that I hold dear.

 

[Clarktar]

I'll take all SO gear. Just PM a price.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[AdamLewis]

I'll take all SO gear. Just PM a price.

While there are probably people who will want to sell off their SO gear because of this I have to think they are the minority.

I have one of their packs and they already got paid for it, so whether I wear it on my next hunt or burn it doesn't affect them in any way. Unfortunately it is a pretty awesome pack so if some day I need to replace it I guess I have to figure out something else.

In any case SO doesn't really slap fat branding on their stuff, like Ultimate Direction does for example, so it isn't like people who see someone walking through the backcountry are getting advertised to.

 

[striped1]

I have not read every post on this thread, but I can assure anyone who thinks Kevin hates hunters has not met him.

When I talked to him at expo two weeks ago, he just got back from a weeklong bird hunt. And yes, he took a gun.

He’s a long time advertiser on this site and has gone out of his way to connect with members on here. Not sure if he’s going to chime in on this thread but I want to make sure he doesn’t get painted as “hating hunters”.

Well hating the 2nd amendment isn't a great look. They have gotten my last dollar and I have two of their teepees, one tarp and a couple of ground clothes and was going for a SXL stove this year, but winnerwell will get my money

 

[AdamLewis]

Well hating the 2nd amendment isn't a great look.

For sure.

No idea what he thinks of hunters but he is clearly a typical anti-gun type who sees his guns as fine but not yours.

 

[Ten Bears]

Yeah, certainly revealing.

Just wanted to say that you did a great job navigating this topic overall even with some trying to derail it. Maybe the only compliment you’ll get out of a Wolverine!

What was the general gist over on the site ? Lotsa “wild places” and “feelings” ?

 

[cnelk]

^^^ of course ol Buzz couldn’t resist to spew his disdain and his typical antagonism