Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Wonder if the shooter was influenced in any way by the new TN law? https://abc17news.com/news/2023/03/03/tennessee-governor-signs-ban-on-gender-affirming-care-for-minors-2/
You guys want the TN crib notes on why that law got passed?
And lets be clear. The law requires drag/burlesque dancers to not do their shows on public property and have age verification at the door. (Same law as Las Vegas fyi)
The law was passed because we had a drag queen hold a show at the college campus in our town on the arts department stage without approval. (not a student to my knowledge). At this show they had kids well under 10 tucking dollar bills in his g string. It got videotaped and all hell broke loose.
College admin tried to pass the buck so legislators stepped in and made a law.
AGR, I totally support the TN law. I was merely wondering if the new law could have triggered a mentally ill person to commit murder? Apparently, the attack was planned in detail and there is a manifesto. Of course, there is never a reasonable justification for killing innocent children and adults.
This attack could also perhaps be an act of violence against Christians due to ant-religious bigotry. (shrug), dunno the motive.
Quote: @IDVikingfan said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Wonder if the shooter was influenced in any way by the new TN law? https://abc17news.com/news/2023/03/03/tennessee-governor-signs-ban-on-gender-affirming-care-for-minors-2/
You guys want the TN crib notes on why that law got passed?
And lets be clear. The law requires drag/burlesque dancers to not do their shows on public property and have age verification at the door. (Same law as Las Vegas fyi)
The law was passed because we had a drag queen hold a show at the college campus in our town on the arts department stage without approval. (not a student to my knowledge). At this show they had kids well under 10 tucking dollar bills in his g string. It got videotaped and all hell broke loose.
College admin tried to pass the buck so legislators stepped in and made a law.
AGR, I totally support the TN law. I was merely wondering if the new law could have triggered a mentally ill person to commit murder? Apparently, the attack was planned in detail and there is a manifesto. Of course, there is never a reasonable justification for killing innocent children and adults.
This attack could also perhaps be an act of violence against Christians due to ant-religious bigotry. (shrug), dunno the motive.
It absolutely triggered the shooting. How fucked up is it that this whole chain of events started at a campus I drive by daily because some dipshit thought it was a good idea to hold a drag show with little KIDS present on a college campus stage of which they're not even a student at.
- Internet gets freaked out- Politicians seize the opportunity- Individual feels infringed upon- Individual takes it out on society
If that dumb fucker had his drag show at the gay bar (Where they hold legally allowed drag shows all the time) 2 miles away none of this would have happened. Nobody would have cared. The laws wouldn't have been passed. Those kids would be alive. But thats not how we do things these days. We're all about clicks and endorphin shots by posting crap online, getting manufactured outrage. Being pissed at each other instead of watching the political class rob us blind.
Furthermore. When did shooting kids become in vogue? Go back to shooting up post offices or something. (Just being sarcastic to all the postal workers out there) Leave the damn kids alone!!!
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.
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: @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: @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.
Write laws that aren't open to interpretation would be a good start. Anytime something isn't spelled out explicitly some lawyer and politician will find a way to exploit it. Most people don't trust politicians to just fix a problem and not go for more. Straw man or not, that is how most feel when I talk about common sense legislation.
If we want to fix this country we first need to fix the direction and that will only be done by changing the voting patterns, but thats not going to change to here we are.
We 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?
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.
i kinda read it like the 2nd amendment was in large part about citizens being able to defend themselves from oppressive governance. not sure muskets do much for those rights in this day and age. I think by nature of being the 2nd amendment that its held up pretty well over time. And it seems pretty vital at a time where the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment are dead in our federal branch’s sites.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/
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.
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?
It's a broken society exacerbated by a for profit media and internet structure that is creating more division, turning us to echo chambers, us vs them mentality.
Add in a pharmaceutical industry that has medicated half the country, slurped down widely used psychoactive consumed every single day by most Americans in the form of coffee
Economic limitations for the majority of the country with a significant amount of rising despair due to automation and rising life costs
Infinite levels of sadness from the destruction of the planet we love and the loss of over 70% of wildlife over the last 50 years
With the availability of 300M guns (some for realistic pragmatic use, some not)
It's a fucking disaster regardless of your political leaning. . .
Which one of these can we address?
|
