Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ greediron said:
Anyone that supports the mass killing of babies can STFU.
quite the olive branch lol
Just sick of the hypocrisy. Either killing is wrong or it isn't. Why are we surprised these kids learned that life has no meaning? And why are we so surprised when they act on it?
Ridiculous. Not everyone agrees that a pregnancy, a fertilized egg, a clump of cells, is a human being deserving of all the rights and protections under the law.
Hence we have school shooters.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ AGRforever said:
I think what you did is fine. One question though: how did you conceal your AR-15? Regarding the constitution, I think this description is spot on, but I'm sure you've seen it before and disagree with it. Lather, rinse, repeat.....
I don't own an AR15. I do own a ranch riffle that is quite similar in mechanics. True story, it has existed for some 20 years and never even though about shooting up a school. It honestly doesn't get used much because its limited for longer range shots. Coyotes being the main target. The problem with outright banning AR15s is that the features of the gun carry over to nearly every firearm on the planet. I've seen estimates of +75% of all firearms in the USA being semiautomatic. Semiautomatic seems to be the scariest feature no? The only firearm I own that isn't semiautomatic is a pump action shot gun.
Word for word here is the 2nd amendment:
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.
I'm no legal scholar but that's pretty cut and dry plain English if you ask me.
Here's the definition of militia:
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem" a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
I'm not sure how you do bullet point 1 or 2 if you don't have private access firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens.
You might find Federalist papers #29 (Hamilton), and #46 (Madison) a bit more thorough about the original intent and definitions of the amendment. Heller will be overturned, there is nothing in the constitution about personal & property protection from other citizens.
LOL federalist papers. Hell Hamilton didn't even want a bill or rights. Hamilton's said in FP 84 the constitution was supposed to limit the government only, thus guns would have been a-okay with him.
FP84: It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in
their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments
of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not
surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from the king John...It
is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification,
they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the
power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and
servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as
they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.
"We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better
recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make
the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which
would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution
of government...
I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the
extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the
proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain
various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very
account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were
granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no
power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of
the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which
restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision
would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would
furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming
that power.
Hamilton's opposition to the militia clause would most certainly have risen out of his fear of the Federal government utilizing individual state militia's as its own standing army Hamilton went on to say in FP29:
"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if
circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army
of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of
the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all,
inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to
defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears
to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and
the best possible security against it, if it should exist".[3][4]
Madison argued in FP 46 that there should be a 200 fold quantity of armed citizens willing to stand up to their government.
This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more
than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a
militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their
hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their
common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing
their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a
militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion
of regular troops.
So the context of the second amendment was only about protection of the State vs a Federal standing army.? A good argument for overturning Heller. So where does it say anything about any rights to bare arms for person protection?
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ StickyBun said:
Either you care more about guns.....or you care more about kids. There's no other direction. If we can't get bipartisan action on this, what could we ever get it on?
Oh stop politicizing this tragedy. Never mind that if a bridge collapses, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, change laws, codes, standards, etc. Never mind that if a texting teen crashes his car into a family, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, pass laws, etc. Never mind that if a nut brings down a plane, we don't hesitate to beef up airport security, change laws, enact legislation. Never mind that if an idiot blows his face off with a roman candle, we make them illegal, pass laws, enact legislation. We politicize the tragedy. Etc, etc, etc....
But if nuts go into schools and shoot kids with combat weapons over and over and over again, we do nothing. Because if we do, if we even TALK about possible solutions, we're accused of "politicizing the tragedy." Fucking idiots.
I dont recall reading about fireworks and codes in the constitution? Maybe I missed that part?
The laws are already in place to remedy the situation in the manner you seek. By all means politicize your cause and make the change to the constitution. If the people of the country approve, I’ll happily comply.
Until then, my heart bleeds for anyone negativly impacted by firearms. I didnt sleep much last night. Something is seriously fucked up in this country. I kept thinking of the horror these kids experienced. My youngest is just 1 grade ahead of these kids. I’m on board with changes that obviously need to happen somewhere somehow. I don’t have a clue where one begins.
Just as an fyi, prior to reading about the school, we had intruders on our property last night. (9ish PM). I certainly went armed (concealed) when I confronted them. What is your solution for such an incident? They had a “I’m lost” story but they were awful close to buildings for someone “lost”.
seems odd to me that about every other part of the constitution is timeless, a document drafted over 200 years ago applies to current situations in about every instance, ie freedom of speech applying to social media and other situations that the founding fathers could have never dreamed of, but the 2nd, nope, that was never meant to apply to semiautomatic weapons, it was written for muskets.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ StickyBun said:
Either you care more about guns.....or you care more about kids. There's no other direction. If we can't get bipartisan action on this, what could we ever get it on?
Oh stop politicizing this tragedy. Never mind that if a bridge collapses, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, change laws, codes, standards, etc. Never mind that if a texting teen crashes his car into a family, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, pass laws, etc. Never mind that if a nut brings down a plane, we don't hesitate to beef up airport security, change laws, enact legislation. Never mind that if an idiot blows his face off with a roman candle, we make them illegal, pass laws, enact legislation. We politicize the tragedy. Etc, etc, etc....
But if nuts go into schools and shoot kids with combat weapons over and over and over again, we do nothing. Because if we do, if we even TALK about possible solutions, we're accused of "politicizing the tragedy." Fucking idiots.
I dont recall reading about fireworks and codes in the constitution? Maybe I missed that part?
The laws are already in place to remedy the situation in the manner you seek. By all means politicize your cause and make the change to the constitution. If the people of the country approve, I’ll happily comply.
Until then, my heart bleeds for anyone negativly impacted by firearms. I didnt sleep much last night. Something is seriously fucked up in this country. I kept thinking of the horror these kids experienced. My youngest is just 1 grade ahead of these kids. I’m on board with changes that obviously need to happen somewhere somehow. I don’t have a clue where one begins.
Just as an fyi, prior to reading about the school, we had intruders on our property last night. (9ish PM). I certainly went armed (concealed) when I confronted them. What is your solution for such an incident? They had a “I’m lost” story but they were awful close to buildings for someone “lost”.
seems odd to me that about every other part of the constitution is timeless, a document drafted over 200 years ago applies to current situations in about every instance, ie freedom of speech applying to social media and other situations that the founding fathers could have never dreamed of, but the 2nd, nope, that was never meant to apply to semiautomatic weapons, it was written for muskets.
Not sure where you are going with this, please expound. What groups are you trying to alighn or just saying there are less restrictions on free speech and should be more or that something should be done about the 2nd.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ StickyBun said:
Either you care more about guns.....or you care more about kids. There's no other direction. If we can't get bipartisan action on this, what could we ever get it on?
Oh stop politicizing this tragedy. Never mind that if a bridge collapses, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, change laws, codes, standards, etc. Never mind that if a texting teen crashes his car into a family, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, pass laws, etc. Never mind that if a nut brings down a plane, we don't hesitate to beef up airport security, change laws, enact legislation. Never mind that if an idiot blows his face off with a roman candle, we make them illegal, pass laws, enact legislation. We politicize the tragedy. Etc, etc, etc....
But if nuts go into schools and shoot kids with combat weapons over and over and over again, we do nothing. Because if we do, if we even TALK about possible solutions, we're accused of "politicizing the tragedy." Fucking idiots.
I dont recall reading about fireworks and codes in the constitution? Maybe I missed that part?
The laws are already in place to remedy the situation in the manner you seek. By all means politicize your cause and make the change to the constitution. If the people of the country approve, I’ll happily comply.
Until then, my heart bleeds for anyone negativly impacted by firearms. I didnt sleep much last night. Something is seriously fucked up in this country. I kept thinking of the horror these kids experienced. My youngest is just 1 grade ahead of these kids. I’m on board with changes that obviously need to happen somewhere somehow. I don’t have a clue where one begins.
Just as an fyi, prior to reading about the school, we had intruders on our property last night. (9ish PM). I certainly went armed (concealed) when I confronted them. What is your solution for such an incident? They had a “I’m lost” story but they were awful close to buildings for someone “lost”.
seems odd to me that about every other part of the constitution is timeless, a document drafted over 200 years ago applies to current situations in about every instance, ie freedom of speech applying to social media and other situations that the founding fathers could have never dreamed of, but the 2nd, nope, that was never meant to apply to semiautomatic weapons, it was written for muskets.
Not sure where you are going with this, please expound. What groups are you trying to alighn or just saying there are less restrictions on free speech and should be more or that something should be done about the 2nd.
2nd amendment literally says citizens can own guns. If you don’t like it, amend it. We have a straight forward simple process to righting the ship as you see it.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ StickyBun said:
Either you care more about guns.....or you care more about kids. There's no other direction. If we can't get bipartisan action on this, what could we ever get it on?
Oh stop politicizing this tragedy. Never mind that if a bridge collapses, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, change laws, codes, standards, etc. Never mind that if a texting teen crashes his car into a family, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, pass laws, etc. Never mind that if a nut brings down a plane, we don't hesitate to beef up airport security, change laws, enact legislation. Never mind that if an idiot blows his face off with a roman candle, we make them illegal, pass laws, enact legislation. We politicize the tragedy. Etc, etc, etc....
But if nuts go into schools and shoot kids with combat weapons over and over and over again, we do nothing. Because if we do, if we even TALK about possible solutions, we're accused of "politicizing the tragedy." Fucking idiots.
I dont recall reading about fireworks and codes in the constitution? Maybe I missed that part?
The laws are already in place to remedy the situation in the manner you seek. By all means politicize your cause and make the change to the constitution. If the people of the country approve, I’ll happily comply.
Until then, my heart bleeds for anyone negativly impacted by firearms. I didnt sleep much last night. Something is seriously fucked up in this country. I kept thinking of the horror these kids experienced. My youngest is just 1 grade ahead of these kids. I’m on board with changes that obviously need to happen somewhere somehow. I don’t have a clue where one begins.
Just as an fyi, prior to reading about the school, we had intruders on our property last night. (9ish PM). I certainly went armed (concealed) when I confronted them. What is your solution for such an incident? They had a “I’m lost” story but they were awful close to buildings for someone “lost”.
seems odd to me that about every other part of the constitution is timeless, a document drafted over 200 years ago applies to current situations in about every instance, ie freedom of speech applying to social media and other situations that the founding fathers could have never dreamed of, but the 2nd, nope, that was never meant to apply to semiautomatic weapons, it was written for muskets.
Not sure where you are going with this, please expound. What groups are you trying to alighn or just saying there are less restrictions on free speech and should be more or that something should be done about the 2nd.
2nd amendment literally says citizens can own guns. If you don’t like it, amend it. We have a straight forward simple process to righting the ship as you see it.
okay, but isn't it explicitly for the purpose of “well regulated” militias, which are at the discretion of the “state”? If so Heller is a wet dream result for gunsluts.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ StickyBun said:
Either you care more about guns.....or you care more about kids. There's no other direction. If we can't get bipartisan action on this, what could we ever get it on?
Oh stop politicizing this tragedy. Never mind that if a bridge collapses, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, change laws, codes, standards, etc. Never mind that if a texting teen crashes his car into a family, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, pass laws, etc. Never mind that if a nut brings down a plane, we don't hesitate to beef up airport security, change laws, enact legislation. Never mind that if an idiot blows his face off with a roman candle, we make them illegal, pass laws, enact legislation. We politicize the tragedy. Etc, etc, etc....
But if nuts go into schools and shoot kids with combat weapons over and over and over again, we do nothing. Because if we do, if we even TALK about possible solutions, we're accused of "politicizing the tragedy." Fucking idiots.
I dont recall reading about fireworks and codes in the constitution? Maybe I missed that part?
The laws are already in place to remedy the situation in the manner you seek. By all means politicize your cause and make the change to the constitution. If the people of the country approve, I’ll happily comply.
Until then, my heart bleeds for anyone negativly impacted by firearms. I didnt sleep much last night. Something is seriously fucked up in this country. I kept thinking of the horror these kids experienced. My youngest is just 1 grade ahead of these kids. I’m on board with changes that obviously need to happen somewhere somehow. I don’t have a clue where one begins.
Just as an fyi, prior to reading about the school, we had intruders on our property last night. (9ish PM). I certainly went armed (concealed) when I confronted them. What is your solution for such an incident? They had a “I’m lost” story but they were awful close to buildings for someone “lost”.
seems odd to me that about every other part of the constitution is timeless, a document drafted over 200 years ago applies to current situations in about every instance, ie freedom of speech applying to social media and other situations that the founding fathers could have never dreamed of, but the 2nd, nope, that was never meant to apply to semiautomatic weapons, it was written for muskets.
Not sure where you are going with this, please expound. What groups are you trying to alighn or just saying there are less restrictions on free speech and should be more or that something should be done about the 2nd.
2nd amendment literally says citizens can own guns. If you don’t like it, amend it. We have a straight forward simple process to righting the ship as you see it.
okay, but isn't it explicitly for the purpose of “well regulated” militias, which are at the discretion of the “state”? If so Heller is a wet dream result for gunsluts.
There is nothing in the second amendment that limits gun ownership for malitias. Militias are made up from citizens. The amendment says we need malitias to protect us from a federal gov that oversteps and goes onto say that my right to keep and use arms shall not be infringed.
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.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ StickyBun said:
Either you care more about guns.....or you care more about kids. There's no other direction. If we can't get bipartisan action on this, what could we ever get it on?
Oh stop politicizing this tragedy. Never mind that if a bridge collapses, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, change laws, codes, standards, etc. Never mind that if a texting teen crashes his car into a family, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, pass laws, etc. Never mind that if a nut brings down a plane, we don't hesitate to beef up airport security, change laws, enact legislation. Never mind that if an idiot blows his face off with a roman candle, we make them illegal, pass laws, enact legislation. We politicize the tragedy. Etc, etc, etc....
But if nuts go into schools and shoot kids with combat weapons over and over and over again, we do nothing. Because if we do, if we even TALK about possible solutions, we're accused of "politicizing the tragedy." Fucking idiots.
I dont recall reading about fireworks and codes in the constitution? Maybe I missed that part?
The laws are already in place to remedy the situation in the manner you seek. By all means politicize your cause and make the change to the constitution. If the people of the country approve, I’ll happily comply.
Until then, my heart bleeds for anyone negativly impacted by firearms. I didnt sleep much last night. Something is seriously fucked up in this country. I kept thinking of the horror these kids experienced. My youngest is just 1 grade ahead of these kids. I’m on board with changes that obviously need to happen somewhere somehow. I don’t have a clue where one begins.
Just as an fyi, prior to reading about the school, we had intruders on our property last night. (9ish PM). I certainly went armed (concealed) when I confronted them. What is your solution for such an incident? They had a “I’m lost” story but they were awful close to buildings for someone “lost”.
seems odd to me that about every other part of the constitution is timeless, a document drafted over 200 years ago applies to current situations in about every instance, ie freedom of speech applying to social media and other situations that the founding fathers could have never dreamed of, but the 2nd, nope, that was never meant to apply to semiautomatic weapons, it was written for muskets.
Not sure where you are going with this, please expound. What groups are you trying to alighn or just saying there are less restrictions on free speech and should be more or that something should be done about the 2nd.
2nd amendment literally says citizens can own guns. If you don’t like it, amend it. We have a straight forward simple process to righting the ship as you see it.
okay, but isn't it explicitly for the purpose of “well regulated” militias, which are at the discretion of the “state”? If so Heller is a wet dream result for gunsluts.
There is nothing in the second amendment that limits gun ownership for malitias. Militias are made up from citizens. The amendment says we need malitias to protect us from a federal gov that oversteps and goes onto say that my right to keep and use arms shall not be infringed.
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.
You can tell when the debate is over, the loser starts using slurs.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ StickyBun said:
Either you care more about guns.....or you care more about kids. There's no other direction. If we can't get bipartisan action on this, what could we ever get it on?
Oh stop politicizing this tragedy. Never mind that if a bridge collapses, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, change laws, codes, standards, etc. Never mind that if a texting teen crashes his car into a family, we don't hesitate to politicize the tragedy by enacting legislation, pass laws, etc. Never mind that if a nut brings down a plane, we don't hesitate to beef up airport security, change laws, enact legislation. Never mind that if an idiot blows his face off with a roman candle, we make them illegal, pass laws, enact legislation. We politicize the tragedy. Etc, etc, etc....
But if nuts go into schools and shoot kids with combat weapons over and over and over again, we do nothing. Because if we do, if we even TALK about possible solutions, we're accused of "politicizing the tragedy." Fucking idiots.
I dont recall reading about fireworks and codes in the constitution? Maybe I missed that part?
The laws are already in place to remedy the situation in the manner you seek. By all means politicize your cause and make the change to the constitution. If the people of the country approve, I’ll happily comply.
Until then, my heart bleeds for anyone negativly impacted by firearms. I didnt sleep much last night. Something is seriously fucked up in this country. I kept thinking of the horror these kids experienced. My youngest is just 1 grade ahead of these kids. I’m on board with changes that obviously need to happen somewhere somehow. I don’t have a clue where one begins.
Just as an fyi, prior to reading about the school, we had intruders on our property last night. (9ish PM). I certainly went armed (concealed) when I confronted them. What is your solution for such an incident? They had a “I’m lost” story but they were awful close to buildings for someone “lost”.
seems odd to me that about every other part of the constitution is timeless, a document drafted over 200 years ago applies to current situations in about every instance, ie freedom of speech applying to social media and other situations that the founding fathers could have never dreamed of, but the 2nd, nope, that was never meant to apply to semiautomatic weapons, it was written for muskets.
Not sure where you are going with this, please expound. What groups are you trying to alighn or just saying there are less restrictions on free speech and should be more or that something should be done about the 2nd.
2nd amendment literally says citizens can own guns. If you don’t like it, amend it. We have a straight forward simple process to righting the ship as you see it.
okay, but isn't it explicitly for the purpose of “well regulated” militias, which are at the discretion of the “state”? If so Heller is a wet dream result for gunsluts.
There is nothing in the second amendment that limits gun ownership for malitias. Militias are made up from citizens. The amendment says we need malitias to protect us from a federal gov that oversteps and goes onto say that my right to keep and use arms shall not be infringed.
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.
You are correct about limitations for malitias, but in every context of the time and authors intent the right was granted by the “state” so Heller is going to go. Also historically arm were limited, not everyone could own a cannon or unlimited black powder. Look at what Washington did for punishment in the Whiskey Rebellion.
|
