VikeFans.com

Quote: @BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:
Guess from some responses, there is nothing to be done.  Since the shooter was killed on site their solutions are moot. I guess this is what those who wrote the constitution had in mind.

How about we wait for some facts to come out before we blow up into a pissing match that changes nothing.  

Just agreeing with your sentiment about “lots of cold dead hands” and “civil war 2.0”. If i missed your point what was it?  Slow deaths after the fact are going to deter these events?  What is your side going to back down on, back ground checks, red flag laws, any accountability for enablers?  Just waiting for a cogent suggestion for a first step, but it never happens.  There appears to be a real pattern and it isn’t library books or drag queens in bathrooms.

I say it's a constitutional right,   you want to change it the rules are very clear,  and if even a sliver of those not on your side thought that what your side proposes would actually do anything,  or that it wouldn't lead to more rights being taken,   then you would have your majority to change the constitution,   but since your side has shown no ability to govern without over reach,  to acknowledge failed policies instead of doubling down on stupidity,  then I guess you are right,   so go ahead and keep dressing up in women's underwear or whatever it is that your side enjoys to do with your free time,  I am going to go shoot something

So you got nothing. Like I said celebrate your rights and enjoy it.  

There are discussions,   but they become moot when your sides track record comes into the discussion.  Typically things like red flag laws and other restrictions are accepted until the " how the dems will abuse them" comes up and thats the end.  A vast majority of gun owners aren't as strong willed about their guns as they are about the constitution and every inch gave has resulted in yards taken through perverted interpretations,  there just is no trust that any concessions won't be used against law abiding gun owners.

What "track record", gun right's have only been expanded, as the second amendment is being reinterpreted to suit the gun lobby. 
Your fear of the "dems" boogey-strawman is killing a lot of children, man up and own it at least.

Quote: @JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:
Guess from some responses, there is nothing to be done.  Since the shooter was killed on site their solutions are moot. I guess this is what those who wrote the constitution had in mind.

How about we wait for some facts to come out before we blow up into a pissing match that changes nothing.  

Just agreeing with your sentiment about “lots of cold dead hands” and “civil war 2.0”. If i missed your point what was it?  Slow deaths after the fact are going to deter these events?  What is your side going to back down on, back ground checks, red flag laws, any accountability for enablers?  Just waiting for a cogent suggestion for a first step, but it never happens.  There appears to be a real pattern and it isn’t library books or drag queens in bathrooms.

I say it's a constitutional right,   you want to change it the rules are very clear,  and if even a sliver of those not on your side thought that what your side proposes would actually do anything,  or that it wouldn't lead to more rights being taken,   then you would have your majority to change the constitution,   but since your side has shown no ability to govern without over reach,  to acknowledge failed policies instead of doubling down on stupidity,  then I guess you are right,   so go ahead and keep dressing up in women's underwear or whatever it is that your side enjoys to do with your free time,  I am going to go shoot something

So you got nothing. Like I said celebrate your rights and enjoy it.  

There are discussions,   but they become moot when your sides track record comes into the discussion.  Typically things like red flag laws and other restrictions are accepted until the " how the dems will abuse them" comes up and thats the end.  A vast majority of gun owners aren't as strong willed about their guns as they are about the constitution and every inch gave has resulted in yards taken through perverted interpretations,  there just is no trust that any concessions won't be used against law abiding gun owners.

What "track record", gun right's have only been expanded, as the second amendment is being reinterpreted to suit the gun lobby. 
Your fear of the "dems" boogey-strawman is killing a lot of children, man up and own it at least.

you are either ignorant, arrogant, or both.  I am not a politician,  I dont write or vote on laws... hell I dont lobby at the national level and I am not a member of the NRA.   Its not my argument,  but you were the one to apply sides so if you are taking a position,  I will take the opposite.  its comical that a dem will accuse anybody of reinterpreting the constitution to suit their need,  just out of curiosity,   what exactly is getting abused and expanded about the 2nd amendment from its original written form in your opinion?

Quote: @AGRforever said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:
Guess from some responses, there is nothing to be done.  Since the shooter was killed on site their solutions are moot. I guess this is what those who wrote the constitution had in mind.

How about we wait for some facts to come out before we blow up into a pissing match that changes nothing.  

Just agreeing with your sentiment about “lots of cold dead hands” and “civil war 2.0”. If i missed your point what was it?  Slow deaths after the fact are going to deter these events?  What is your side going to back down on, back ground checks, red flag laws, any accountability for enablers?  Just waiting for a cogent suggestion for a first step, but it never happens.  There appears to be a real pattern and it isn’t library books or drag queens in bathrooms.

I say it's a constitutional right,   you want to change it the rules are very clear,  and if even a sliver of those not on your side thought that what your side proposes would actually do anything,  or that it wouldn't lead to more rights being taken,   then you would have your majority to change the constitution,   but since your side has shown no ability to govern without over reach,  to acknowledge failed policies instead of doubling down on stupidity,  then I guess you are right,   so go ahead and keep dressing up in women's underwear or whatever it is that your side enjoys to do with your free time,  I am going to go shoot something

So you got nothing. Like I said celebrate your rights and enjoy it.  

There are discussions,   but they become moot when your sides track record comes into the discussion.  Typically things like red flag laws and other restrictions are accepted until the " how the dems will abuse them" comes up and thats the end.  A vast majority of gun owners aren't as strong willed about their guns as they are about the constitution and every inch gave has resulted in yards taken through perverted interpretations,  there just is no trust that any concessions won't be used against law abiding gun owners.

What "track record", gun right's have only been expanded, as the second amendment is being reinterpreted to suit the gun lobby. 
Your fear of the "dems" boogey-strawman is killing a lot of children, man up and own it at least.

you are either ignorant, arrogant, or both.  I am not a politician,  I dont write or vote on laws... hell I dont lobby at the national level and I am not a member of the NRA.   Its not my argument,  but you were the one to apply sides so if you are taking a position,  I will take the opposite.  its comical that a dem will accuse anybody of reinterpreting the constitution to suit their need,  just out of curiosity,   what exactly is getting abused and expanded about the 2nd amendment from its original written form in your opinion?

I think that holds with +95% of the "gun supporters" out there.  I've never sent a dime to a gun lobby knowingly.  I don't do policy.  I'd love for kids to stop being targeted.  I don't know how to fix this without amending the constitution, whats written is quite clear.  I also have no idea how you'll get 66% in the country to agree on something.....anything for that matter.  

Quote: @JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:
Guess from some responses, there is nothing to be done.  Since the shooter was killed on site their solutions are moot. I guess this is what those who wrote the constitution had in mind.

How about we wait for some facts to come out before we blow up into a pissing match that changes nothing.  

Just agreeing with your sentiment about “lots of cold dead hands” and “civil war 2.0”. If i missed your point what was it?  Slow deaths after the fact are going to deter these events?  What is your side going to back down on, back ground checks, red flag laws, any accountability for enablers?  Just waiting for a cogent suggestion for a first step, but it never happens.  There appears to be a real pattern and it isn’t library books or drag queens in bathrooms.

I say it's a constitutional right,   you want to change it the rules are very clear,  and if even a sliver of those not on your side thought that what your side proposes would actually do anything,  or that it wouldn't lead to more rights being taken,   then you would have your majority to change the constitution,   but since your side has shown no ability to govern without over reach,  to acknowledge failed policies instead of doubling down on stupidity,  then I guess you are right,   so go ahead and keep dressing up in women's underwear or whatever it is that your side enjoys to do with your free time,  I am going to go shoot something

So you got nothing. Like I said celebrate your rights and enjoy it.  

There are discussions,   but they become moot when your sides track record comes into the discussion.  Typically things like red flag laws and other restrictions are accepted until the " how the dems will abuse them" comes up and thats the end.  A vast majority of gun owners aren't as strong willed about their guns as they are about the constitution and every inch gave has resulted in yards taken through perverted interpretations,  there just is no trust that any concessions won't be used against law abiding gun owners.

What "track record", gun right's have only been expanded, as the second amendment is being reinterpreted to suit the gun lobby. 
Your fear of the "dems" boogey-strawman is killing a lot of children, man up and own it at least.

you are either ignorant, arrogant, or both.  I am not a politician,  I dont write or vote on laws... hell I dont lobby at the national level and I am not a member of the NRA.   Its not my argument,  but you were the one to apply sides so if you are taking a position,  I will take the opposite.  its comical that a dem will accuse anybody of reinterpreting the constitution to suit their need,  just out of curiosity,   what exactly is getting abused and expanded about the 2nd amendment from its original written form in your opinion?

Quote: @BigAl99 said:
We

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@BigAl99 said:
Guess from some responses, there is nothing to be done.  Since the shooter was killed on site their solutions are moot. I guess this is what those who wrote the constitution had in mind.

How about we wait for some facts to come out before we blow up into a pissing match that changes nothing.  

Just agreeing with your sentiment about “lots of cold dead hands” and “civil war 2.0”. If i missed your point what was it?  Slow deaths after the fact are going to deter these events?  What is your side going to back down on, back ground checks, red flag laws, any accountability for enablers?  Just waiting for a cogent suggestion for a first step, but it never happens.  There appears to be a real pattern and it isn’t library books or drag queens in bathrooms.

I say it's a constitutional right,   you want to change it the rules are very clear,  and if even a sliver of those not on your side thought that what your side proposes would actually do anything,  or that it wouldn't lead to more rights being taken,   then you would have your majority to change the constitution,   but since your side has shown no ability to govern without over reach,  to acknowledge failed policies instead of doubling down on stupidity,  then I guess you are right,   so go ahead and keep dressing up in women's underwear or whatever it is that your side enjoys to do with your free time,  I am going to go shoot something

So you got nothing. Like I said celebrate your rights and enjoy it.  

There are discussions,   but they become moot when your sides track record comes into the discussion.  Typically things like red flag laws and other restrictions are accepted until the " how the dems will abuse them" comes up and thats the end.  A vast majority of gun owners aren't as strong willed about their guns as they are about the constitution and every inch gave has resulted in yards taken through perverted interpretations,  there just is no trust that any concessions won't be used against law abiding gun owners.

What "track record", gun right's have only been expanded, as the second amendment is being reinterpreted to suit the gun lobby. 
Your fear of the "dems" boogey-strawman is killing a lot of children, man up and own it at least.

you are either ignorant, arrogant, or both.  I am not a politician,  I dont write or vote on laws... hell I dont lobby at the national level and I am not a member of the NRA.   Its not my argument,  but you were the one to apply sides so if you are taking a position,  I will take the opposite.  its comical that a dem will accuse anybody of reinterpreting the constitution to suit their need,  just out of curiosity,   what exactly is getting abused and expanded about the 2nd amendment from its original written form in your opinion?

Well in 1791 muskets and flintlock pistols were the typical arms( at best three rounds a minute) and militias were used for defense because there was no standing Army.  If you create a timeline of US supreme court cases going back to US V Cruikshank(1875)  Presser V Illinois (1886) militias, arms and the relationship to the second amendment was based on the need for individuals to be prepared to defend the state when called upon.  In 2010 the Heller decision things changed and all of a sudden changed direction and said the individual had the right was unconnected to service in a militia, that was the recent expansion.  In 1939 the technology of firearms was established in  in US V Miller.  The point in that ruling that stands out to me, in my, opinion is
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators."
So you should refrain from the name calling and personal insults, you should get banned for it, based on past precedent.