Quote: @AGRforever said:
@BigAl99 said:
We@JimmyinSD said:
@BigAl99 said:
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?@JimmyinSD said:
@BigAl99 said:
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.@JimmyinSD said:
So you got nothing. Like I said celebrate your rights and enjoy it.@BigAl99 said:
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@JimmyinSD said:
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.@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.
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.
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.
If you want interpret the 2nd amendment to mean flintlocks, then free speech must only protect printing presses, feather quills on parchment and the spoken word?
Never said 2nd amendment was limited to flintlocks and muzzle loaders, the point was that was the technology of the time and the term militias that were the means of raising a defensive military force when the document was written. JSD asked about expansion of interpretation and called me "ignorant or arrogant" and I tried to reply directly. Wasted effort on those with closed minds, and are so secure in the fear of the bogey men they are unable to do anything but whine.
For one hundred and thirty five years the 2nd amendment rights were tied to militia need, with Heller (2010) that changed to individual rights with absolutely no precedence. With Miller in 1939 the type/technology of firearm was addressed that fell under the 2nd amendment, specifically sawed off shotguns. The case was made in response National Fire Arms act of 1934,to prevent the type of violence displayed in the St. Valentines massacre. A limitation based on protecting socity need's.
You guy's have a hard time walking the line between being simplistic and being just plain simple. When in US history have "all guns" been taken from the US population. I can only think of one time, Geo. Washington during the Whisky Rebellion and that was limited to Pennsylvania. Certain subgroups were not allowed to own or possess during the Jim Crow era. Care to expand when guns were taken, Japanese internment's perhaps?
Quote: @greediron said:So support investments in mental health. Social programs that put more counselors in the street/schools to work with police departments, EMTs, etc. Maybe not try to buy into media and politics that demonize any group, marginalized or the majority
Mental health is the issue. Sick people stab, drive SUVs, shoot pistols, long guns...
And restricting anything isn't going to stop a criminal mind bent on destruction. These empty-soul, no purpose in life youth want to end it all in a blaze of glory. If you don't fix that, it will keep happening.
Quote: @Skodin said:
The Waukesha SUV driver killed as many and injured more than this latest crazy person.@greediron said:
Mental health is the issue. Sick people stab, drive SUVs, shoot pistols, long guns...
And restricting anything isn't going to stop a criminal mind bent on destruction. These empty-soul, no purpose in life youth want to end it all in a blaze of glory. If you don't fix that, it will keep happening. So support investments in mental health. Social programs that put more counselors in the street/schools to work with police departments, EMTs, etc. Maybe not try to buy into media and politics that demonize any group, marginalized or the majority
Even then, there are so many people who are on the edge of sanity, there are still going to be people who slide through the cracks.
Slide through cracks and purchase 7 guns from 5 different stores, why is this acceptable? Isn't there a good conversation for both sides regarding limitations on how many guns one can own/purchase legally?
BTW trying to equate stabbings or driving an SUV into a crowd of people to school/mass shooting is a false equivalency. Crazy people with access to dangerous/multiple weapons that can kill in mass in a short period of time in a moderate distance is the problem.
As to your first section, I feel marginalized by your assumptions. Why do you assume I am the issue and not yourself. Seen plenty of demonization regarding anyone supporting the 2nd amendment. Maybe the media is the issue.
Maybe it isn't social programs that are needed, we have many of those. Perhaps it is religious programs that are needed. Or not allowing kids on apps that have predatory natures.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Those printing presses took time to print off 100 copies. I can post a viral video on YouTube and have a couple million people see it per day.@AGRforever said:
@BigAl99 said:
We@JimmyinSD said:
@BigAl99 said:
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?@JimmyinSD said:
@BigAl99 said:
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.@JimmyinSD said:
So you got nothing. Like I said celebrate your rights and enjoy it.@BigAl99 said:
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@JimmyinSD said:
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.@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.
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.
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.
If you want interpret the 2nd amendment to mean flintlocks, then free speech must only protect printing presses, feather quills on parchment and the spoken word?
Never said 2nd amendment was limited to flintlocks and muzzle loaders, the point was that was the technology of the time and the term militias that were the means of raising a defensive military force when the document was written. JSD asked about expansion of interpretation and called me "ignorant or arrogant" and I tried to reply directly. Wasted effort on those with closed minds, and are so secure in the fear of the bogey men they are unable to do anything but whine.
For one hundred and thirty five years the 2nd amendment rights were tied to militia need, with Heller (2010) that changed to individual rights with absolutely no precedence. With Miller in 1939 the type/technology of firearm was addressed that fell under the 2nd amendment, specifically sawed off shotguns. The case was made in response National Fire Arms act of 1934,to prevent the type of violence displayed in the St. Valentines massacre. A limitation based on protecting socity need's.
You guy's have a hard time walking the line between being simplistic and being just plain simple. When in US history have "all guns" been taken from the US population. I can only think of one time, Geo. Washington during the Whisky Rebellion and that was limited to Pennsylvania. Certain subgroups were not allowed to own or possess during the Jim Crow era. Care to expand when guns were taken, Japanese internment's perhaps?
Technology changed everything. Laws change. Society changes. I’m not opposed to figuring this gun thing out. I don’t disagree that something needs to get done, but I also respect the idea that its a huge hill to climb when you’re talking about constitutional rights.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@AGRforever
The point wasn't just about the technology, the first amendment isn't qualified by the need for a well regulated replacement for a standing Army to defend the State. There is no qualifier for the right of free speech. The point about the Miller case was the type of arm's needed did not include short barreled shot guns and tommy guns. That was in response to a heinous, for the time, act of violence by organized criminals.
Cruikshank and Miller decisions established the relationship to militias and the second amendment, which stood till 2010 and the Heller case.
Quote: @greediron said:
Don't take my statement as an attack you, it's the general we that buys into the divisiveness of us vs them. Everyone should unplug from FOR PROFIT media and internet echo chambers.@Skodin said:
The Waukesha SUV driver killed as many and injured more than this latest crazy person.@greediron said:
Mental health is the issue. Sick people stab, drive SUVs, shoot pistols, long guns...
And restricting anything isn't going to stop a criminal mind bent on destruction. These empty-soul, no purpose in life youth want to end it all in a blaze of glory. If you don't fix that, it will keep happening. So support investments in mental health. Social programs that put more counselors in the street/schools to work with police departments, EMTs, etc. Maybe not try to buy into media and politics that demonize any group, marginalized or the majority
Even then, there are so many people who are on the edge of sanity, there are still going to be people who slide through the cracks.
Slide through cracks and purchase 7 guns from 5 different stores, why is this acceptable? Isn't there a good conversation for both sides regarding limitations on how many guns one can own/purchase legally?
BTW trying to equate stabbings or driving an SUV into a crowd of people to school/mass shooting is a false equivalency. Crazy people with access to dangerous/multiple weapons that can kill in mass in a short period of time in a moderate distance is the problem.
As to your first section, I feel marginalized by your assumptions. Why do you assume I am the issue and not yourself. Seen plenty of demonization regarding anyone supporting the 2nd amendment. Maybe the media is the issue.
Maybe it isn't social programs that are needed, we have many of those. Perhaps it is religious programs that are needed. Or not allowing kids on apps that have predatory natures.
Sure, Waukesha happened but that's more anecdotal than statistical. How often does that happen? Guns have taken over the number 1 spot of leading causes of children death in this country. 3,600 plus have died this year from gun related incidents. How many of these death can be avoided with better gun regulation/management? One side of the conversation is very protective of kids, why not push back on the issue that is the number one cause of their death. It sure as fuck isn't drag shows.
It's a room of 800lb gorillas we are facing married with the societal rot that has been exacerbated by the internet, access to information, screen addiction. There is no turning it back now.
Quote: @Skodin said:
Waukesha is not anendotal. Vehicles kill lots of people, kids included in the US. Few are as intentional as that, but drive by shootings use vehicles as well. Drunk driving, distracted driving and dangerous driving all kill people.@greediron said:
Don't take my statement as an attack you, it's the general we that buys into the divisiveness of us vs them. Everyone should unplug from FOR PROFIT media and internet echo chambers.@Skodin said:
The Waukesha SUV driver killed as many and injured more than this latest crazy person.@greediron said:
Mental health is the issue. Sick people stab, drive SUVs, shoot pistols, long guns...
And restricting anything isn't going to stop a criminal mind bent on destruction. These empty-soul, no purpose in life youth want to end it all in a blaze of glory. If you don't fix that, it will keep happening. So support investments in mental health. Social programs that put more counselors in the street/schools to work with police departments, EMTs, etc. Maybe not try to buy into media and politics that demonize any group, marginalized or the majority
Even then, there are so many people who are on the edge of sanity, there are still going to be people who slide through the cracks.
Slide through cracks and purchase 7 guns from 5 different stores, why is this acceptable? Isn't there a good conversation for both sides regarding limitations on how many guns one can own/purchase legally?
BTW trying to equate stabbings or driving an SUV into a crowd of people to school/mass shooting is a false equivalency. Crazy people with access to dangerous/multiple weapons that can kill in mass in a short period of time in a moderate distance is the problem.
As to your first section, I feel marginalized by your assumptions. Why do you assume I am the issue and not yourself. Seen plenty of demonization regarding anyone supporting the 2nd amendment. Maybe the media is the issue.
Maybe it isn't social programs that are needed, we have many of those. Perhaps it is religious programs that are needed. Or not allowing kids on apps that have predatory natures.
Sure, Waukesha happened but that's more anecdotal than statistical. How often does that happen? Guns have taken over the number 1 spot of leading causes of children death in this country. 3,600 plus have died this year from gun related incidents. How many of these death can be avoided with better gun regulation/management? One side of the conversation is very protective of kids, why not push back on the issue that is the number one cause of their death. It sure as fuck isn't drag shows.
It's a room of 800lb gorillas we are facing married with the societal rot that has been exacerbated by the internet, access to information, screen addiction. There is no turning it back now.
The thing about guns is that there are already many many laws. Schools are gun free zones. Waiting periods, all these limitations and still the deaths happen. So many of the mass shootings happen after someone has been identified by the police as an issue. Failure to act contributes to these incidents.
And yes, everyone should unplug from the for profit media. That we can agree on. But where are the regulations on that? Well, congress is using tiktok as an excuse to take more constitutional freedoms rather than actually address the issue.