Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 27, 2018, 03:45:37 PM
-
He is wrong and what he proposes is absurd (claiming it would be easy to repeal the Second Amendment), but I can respect the fact he is being honest. This is what the left wants. They're just not honest about it like Stevens.
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENS
MARCH 27, 2018
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.
Correction: March 27, 2018
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.
John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
-
He is wrong and what he proposes is absurd (claiming it would be easy to repeal the Second Amendment), but I can respect the fact he is being honest. This is what the left wants. They're just not honest about it like Stevens.
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENS
MARCH 27, 2018
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.
Correction: March 27, 2018
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.
John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
Yes... Let's "re-write" the Constitution!!!
-
Yes... Let's "re-write" the Constitution!!!
And confiscate 300 million firearms. Talk about starting civil war.
-
And confiscate 300 million firearms. Talk about starting civil war.
What's the problem?
It will end mass-shootings!!
ALL THE BAD GUYS will surrender their guns!
Geezus, Dos...
Don't you know nothing?
-
What's the problem?
It will end mass-shootings!!
ALL THE BAD GUYS will surrender their guns!
Geezus, Dos...
Don't you know nothing?
lol. That's how simplistic their argument is. :-\
-
lol. That's how simplistic their argument is. :-\
Yep.
-
Is this the same Justice John Paul Stevens that was originally appointed by George Washington?
-
Yes... Let's "re-write" the Constitution!!!
Just to be clear.. no one including this retired Judge is asking anyone to "re-write" the constitution. As you probably know, the amendment..any amendment is in a sense re-writing the constitution
-
And confiscate 300 million firearms. Talk about starting civil war.
No one is advocating confiscating 300 million firearms. It is a false argument put forward by the right.. and it seems to be working given it gets repeated so much
-
No one is advocating confiscating 300 million firearms. It is a false argument put forward by the right.. and it seems to be working given it gets repeated so much
Yeah. Whatever. Citing Australia as an example, where they had government ordered gun confiscation, is just a coincidence. Pretty naive thinking.
-
Yeah. Whatever. Citing Australia as an example, where they had government ordered gun confiscation, is just a coincidence. Pretty naive thinking.
Australia doesn't have the US Constitution.. relax
-
this guy was appointed by well known liberal POTUS Richard Nixon
-
Australia doesn't have the US Constitution.. relax
No kidding. They don't have their version of the Second Amendment. That's why citing them as a example we should follow makes no sense. But you go ahead support folks who want to repeal the Second Amendment. Or keep your head in the sand.
-
No kidding. They don't have their version of the Second Amendment. That's why citing them as a example we should follow makes no sense. But you go ahead support folks who want to repeal the Second Amendment. Or keep your head in the sand.
there is no need to repeal but I understand why you keep wanting to frame the argument that way
-
No kidding. They don't have their version of the Second Amendment. That's why citing them as a example we should follow makes no sense. But you go ahead support folks who want to repeal the Second Amendment. Or keep your head in the sand.
Never wanted to repeal it. Im frankly perplexed at your suggestion otherwise
-
this guy was appointed by well known liberal POTUS Richard Nixon
Strangely enough you used to be able to buy a Thompson sub machine gun out of the sears catalog for about $250.00 up until 1933. Some politicians brother gets killed by Chicago gangsters by 1934 fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted. So we go from 1776 to 1933 where your average citizen can pretty much buy anything to what we have now.
-
No kidding. They don't have their version of the Second Amendment. That's why citing them as a example we should follow makes no sense. But you go ahead support folks who want to repeal the Second Amendment. Or keep your head in the sand.
I own 3 rifles (no military type) and 2 handguns. I carry a handgun roughly 12 hrs of the day. I think you have me confused with someone else
-
Never wanted to repeal it. Im frankly perplexed at your suggestion otherwise
Yes, that is exactly what the left wants. It just took someone at the end of their life with integrity to say it like Stevens.
-
Strangely enough you used to be able to buy a Thompson sub machine gun out of the sears catalog for about $250.00 up until 1933. Some politicians brother gets killed by Chicago gangsters by 1934 fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted. So we go from 1776 to 1933 where your average citizen can pretty much buy anything to what we have now.
Apparently it was the gun of choice by mobsters in Chicago during Prohibition
Good Times
-
Apparently it was the gun of choice by mobsters in Chicago during Prohibition
Good Times
Yeah and if the stupid fucking government hadn't decided that making alcohol illegal was a good idea, that shit wouldn't have happened
-
This is wrong, but did make me laugh out loud. ;D
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Yeah and if the stupid fucking government hadn't decided that making alcohol illegal was a good idea, that shit wouldn't have happened
well you can now buy alcohol all over the country and pot in most states
I guess you'll have to find a way to deal with not being able to have a machine gun but I suspect that lack of one hasn't had much impact on your life. I think bump stocks are still legal so maybe just get one of those instead
-
well you can now buy alcohol all over the country and pot in most states
I guess you'll have to find a way to deal with not being able to have a machine gun but I suspect that lack of one hasn't had much impact on your life. I think bump stocks are still legal so maybe just get one of those instead
And just like that the Al Capone's of the world lost their cash cow. I personally don't want a machine gun, but if someone else does more power to them. See that is the difference between you and me. I don't like something, I change the channel, or don't buy the product. You think it should be banned for everyone simply because you think that no one needs a machine gun.
And as far as the bump stock, its a stupid gimmick, but if someone wants one...............
I also accept the fact that some people are just simply fucking evil and will find a way to kill no matter the tool.
-
At least he is being honest about what most libfagcommies want but are to scared to admit
He is wrong and what he proposes is absurd (claiming it would be easy to repeal the Second Amendment), but I can respect the fact he is being honest. This is what the left wants. They're just not honest about it like Stevens.
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENS
MARCH 27, 2018
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.
Correction: March 27, 2018
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.
John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
-
Apparently it was the gun of choice by mobsters in Chicago during Prohibition
Good Times
So what Grasping At . . . - Mobsters mainly killed mobsters and thats it.
-
So what Grasping At . . . - Mobsters mainly killed mobsters and thats it.
Black mainly kill blacks.
-
True colors.
More Democrats Should Be Calling for the Repeal of the Second Amendment
They have to drag the middle of the conversation back to the middle.
BY JACK HOLMES
MAR 27, 2018
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19604852/democrats-repeal-second-amendment/
-
Pretty sure John Paul Stevens is okay with restricting free speech, too. For stuff that's "too offensive" to be taken by someone else, I suppose.
No, that doesn't sound like trouble. Perfectly good idea. That way we'll learn not to be mean! >:( >:(
Seriously, the guy's a real ringding. He's supposed to be someone known to have an ability to see the big picture, and to wisely use it for our benefit. No way he could answer for his thoughts on this stuff, though.
I understand he's very old now and no longer holds his spot, so that's probably why he figures it's okay to go a little crazy. Guaranteed, no way he'd ever allow anyone to corner him to ask for an explanation. That much he DOES know.
-
You gotta admit seeing a tiny bit of humor, though. Right at the time the anti-gun nuts were screaming, "No one wants to get rid of the Second Amendment, you paranoid freaks!!"
::) ::)
-
You gotta admit seeing a tiny bit of humor, though. Right at the time the anti-gun nuts were screaming, "No one wants to get rid of the Second Amendment, you paranoid freaks!!"
::) ::)
Yes the reality is it is very difficult to say "no one" on about anything these days. No one would vote for an accused pedophile. No one would vote for a white supremacist. N one thinks women should'nt be able to vote. The reality is there are always a few who will.
-
Yes the reality is it is very difficult to say "no one" on about anything these days. No one would vote for an accused pedophile. No one would vote for a white supremacist. N one thinks women should'nt be able to vote. The reality is there are always a few who will.
IMO when a John Paul Stevens says so, then he'd better put his ass on a line to answer for it. I do believe he waited until reaching such a state in life that it'd be unlikely that could ever happen. He's now around 100 years old (serious).
-
IMO when a John Paul Stevens says so, then he'd better put his ass on a line to answer for it. I do believe he waited until reaching such a state in life that it'd be unlikely that could ever happen. He's now around 100 years old (serious).
I think this isn't the first time he voiced that opinion. And he will probably also tell you it's just his opinion. I still would like to hear his opinion on how repealing the 2nd amendment would look like to him, as I don't think he made it very clear.
-
I think this isn't the first time he voiced that opinion. And he will probably also tell you it's just his opinion. I still would like to hear his opinion on how repealing the 2nd amendment would look like to him, as I don't think he made it very clear.
And he'll exit life that way, exactly as planned.
The guy's a flake imo. He shouldn't say things he can't back up.
-
No, I think the way it's supposed to work is that a person would have to make clear explanation in order to "hope" he or she will be "granted permission" to have a gun.
Someone living outside of town, for instance, has every reason in the world to be armed. No one can ask that person to risk the safety of their family: seeing as how easily a "do or die" situation could result from, say, an intrusion onto their property.
-
Fuck that, though. Most advisable thing under those circumstances, is to keep your weapon(s) stashed and don't even bother with the so-called "law" at that point. It'd no longer be valid on the subject, being that it amounts to some wiseasses placing themselves above God.
Keep you and yours safe, because without that you've got nothing. None of it could matter in that event.
-
You gotta admit seeing a tiny bit of humor, though. Right at the time the anti-gun nuts were screaming, "No one wants to get rid of the Second Amendment, you paranoid freaks!!"
::) ::)
Pretty funny. Did you see Cuomo putting his foot in his mouth? http://freebeacon.com/issues/cnns-cuomo-no-one-calling-repeal-second-amendment/
-
Pretty funny. Did you see Cuomo putting his foot in his mouth? http://freebeacon.com/issues/cnns-cuomo-no-one-calling-repeal-second-amendment/
;D ;D ;D
What a mess, but it's almost worth it for that. Almost.
-
Pretty funny. Did you see Cuomo putting his foot in his mouth? http://freebeacon.com/issues/cnns-cuomo-no-one-calling-repeal-second-amendment/
You are spot on , Cuomo put his foot in his mouth. It's not my intention to minimize his stupidity but I'm sure I could match you foot for foot with any anchor host like Hannity or Tucker in similar situations. The only difference might be.. the lack of acknowledgement
-
You are spot on , Cuomo put his foot in his mouth. It's not my intention to minimize his stupidity but I'm sure I could match you foot for foot with any anchor host like Hannity or Tucker in similar situations. The only difference might be.. the lack of acknowledgement
That’s exactly what you’re trying to do. Hannity or Tucker has zero to do with Cuomo making a fool of himself.
And I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don’t watch Tucker Carlson’s show. If you did, you’d know he is one of the straightest shooters on TV.
-
That’s exactly what you’re trying to do. Hannity or Tucker has zero to do with Cuomo making a fool of himself.
And I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don’t watch Tucker Carlson’s show. If you did, you’d know he is one of the straightest shooters on TV.
I watch it. It's tough to watch but I make myself do it about once a week. And yes, if you are a right wing Trump supporter, he would appear to be a straight shooter
-
I watch it. It's tough to watch but I make myself do it about once a week. And yes, if you are a right wing Trump supporter, he would appear to be a straight shooter
I am sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for confirming you are just another uninformed left wing hack.
-
I am sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for confirming you are just another uninformed left wing hack.
Sure, please accept my apology for treating you like a normal adult
-
Sure, please accept my apology for treating you like a normal adult
And let me go record saying that you claiming you watch Tucker Carlson every week is absolute bs. Why do you feel the need to lie?
-
And let me go record saying that you claiming you watch Tucker Carlson every week is absolute bs. Why do you feel the need to lie?
Let me also go on record to say that if something is beyond your personal comprehension or something you would personally do, you label it a lie. Why do you feel the need to do that?
-
"Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away.." GC
Just sayin'
-
Let me also go on record to say that if something is beyond your personal comprehension or something you would personally do, you label it a lie. Why do you feel the need to do that?
::) I choose my words carefully. For example, you lied when you said you read an objective analysis of snopes. When I pressed you about ten times for your source, you gave me a link to an article written by a snopes contributor. lol
In that same thread, when I was talking about Sharyl Attkissson (whom you falsely called a right wing hack), you posted what you called representative reviews of her book The Smear. That was another lie, because the negative reviews of her book were only about 2 percent.
In this thread, you claim to watch Tucker Carlson every week. In addition to literally making me laugh out loud, I think you're lying again. There is no friggin way you watch his show every week.
So, those are specific examples, not the tit for tat juvenile crap you're trying to push. If you're going to come, you need to come correct.
-
::) I choose my words carefully. For example, you lied when you said you read an objective analysis of snopes. When I pressed you about ten times for your source, you gave me a link to an article written by a snopes contributor. lol
In that same thread, when I was talking about Sharyl Attkissson (whom you falsely called a right wing hack), you posted what you called representative reviews of her book The Smear. That was another lie, because the negative reviews of her book were only about 2 percent.
In this thread, you claim to watch Tucker Carlson every week. In addition to literally making me laugh out loud, I think you're lying again. There is no friggin way you watch his show every week.
So, those are specific examples, not the tit for tat juvenile crap you're trying to push. If you're going to come, you need to come correct.
talk about lying. .. you say I posted only snopes. You and I both know that isnt true
I do watch Carlson. I also watch hannity. Prove I am lying.
So far, all you have done is shown your right wing bias, and your penchant to intellectually lie. Not impressed . Ive been treating you with kid gloves, hoping at some point you would acknowledge you haven't been fair. No more. Its time to adult up or shut up
-
talk about lying. .. you say I posted only snopes. You and I both know that isnt true
I do watch Carlson. I also watch hannity. Prove I am lying.
So far, all you have done is shown your right wing bias, and your penchant to intellectually lie. Not impressed . Ive been treating you with kid gloves, hoping at some point you would acknowledge you haven't been fair. No more. Its time to adult up or shut up
Treating me with kid gloves? LOL! Take them off. The internets is serious business. lol
Neither of the links you posted were objective sources. So yes, you lied.
You posted a cherry picked negative review of The Smear to give the false impression that people panned her book. That was a lie.
Can I prove you don't watch Tucker Carlson every week? Of course not. That's my opinion, based on your history of dishonesty on the board, the fact you post like a typical delusional liberal, and you called Carlson some kind of rightwing hack.
-
Treating me with kid gloves? LOL! Take them off. The internets is serious business. lol
Neither of the links you posted were objective sources. So yes, you lied.
You posted a cherry picked negative review of The Smear to give the false impression that people panned her book. That was a lie.
Can I prove you don't watch Tucker Carlson every week? Of course not. That's my opinion, based on your history of dishonesty on the board, the fact you post like a typical delusional liberal, and you called Carlson some kind of rightwing hack.
gloves are off...I will be acting as a liberal, but with right wing morals... so I ask forgiveness going forward. The facts will take a back seat to opinions and biases.
-
gloves are off...
I'm terrified. What are you 10 years old? Are we going to meet after school? lol
-
I'm terrified. What are you 10 years old? Are we going to meet after school? lol
behind the church
-
Fabio was on Carlson tonight, did you catch that? Amazing!
-
Sometimes I can't help but to believe the anti-gun crew really doesn't understand the whole story, or why the pro-gun individuals think as they think. As invaluable as guns are for protection and peaceful mind on a daily basis, especially with a family - which is more than enough reason - they serve a much higher purpose, as well.
They raise a barrier against those who'd try to falsely play the "good guy" in ANY unreasonable, mass effort which may involve, for instance, trying to contain or (more likely) remove families on or from their property. Of course, greater force can be applied to those people, to kill them, as the naysayers so love to point out - (maybe they'll be killed by lazer beam!! or mini-nuke!!) - and that's not in question.
Once the killing starts, however, the trusty "good guy" act of authority can no longer be used. But, see, it's viewed as much too valuable to lose. The only thing wrong-doers have to hope to sway us, at the moment, is that act. Their concern for children is heart-warming, and all. (lol)
As of this date and time, that "good guy" act has been far-and-away the most powerful tool ever used against us. It isn't going to suddenly disappear if the user can continue to use it.
That's why guns, and lots of guns, in OUR hands, are so important. Because someday, that bluff may be called. All signs say it will. So don't give up those guns - the nation's children are NOT at risk for you having them. Quite the opposite: their risk is actually reduced.
-
Sometimes I can't help but to believe the anti-gun crew really doesn't understand the whole story, or why the pro-gun individuals think as they think. As invaluable as guns are for protection and peaceful mind on a daily basis, especially with a family - which is more than enough reason - they serve a much higher purpose, as well.
They raise a barrier against those who'd try to falsely play the "good guy" in ANY unreasonable, mass effort which may involve, for instance, trying to contain or (more likely) remove families on or from their property. Of course, greater force can be applied to those people, to kill them, as the naysayers so love to point out - (maybe they'll be killed by lazer beam!! or mini-nuke!!) - and that's not in question.
Once the killing starts, however, the trusty "good guy" act of authority can no longer be used. But, see, it's viewed as much too valuable to lose. The only thing wrong-doers have to hope to sway us, at the moment, is that act. Their concern for children is heart-warming, and all. (lol)
As of this date and time, that "good guy" act has been far-and-away the most powerful tool ever used against us. It isn't going to suddenly disappear if the user can continue to use it.
That's why guns, and lots of guns, in OUR hands, are so important. Because someday, that bluff may be called. All signs say it will. So don't give up those guns - the nation's children are NOT at risk for you having them. Quite the opposite: their risk is actually reduced.
Not to simplify your post.. but does the good guy with a gun need an Ar 15 to protect his family, and does he need a high capacity round? Because for the most part, that is the argument.
-
behind the church
careful or you might end up electrocuted by Pence
-
Not to simplify your post.. but does the good guy with a gun need an Ar 15 to protect his family, and does he need a high capacity round? Because for the most part, that is the argument.
How about it's none of your fucking business what and how many weapons I have
-
How about it's none of your fucking business what and how many weapons I have
He is a cop - a fake ass cop at that - part of the nanny state that feeds off the tax dollars of those of us who actually produce revenue for the society.
-
Fabio was on Carlson tonight, did you catch that? Amazing!
Yes, Fabio was on Tucker Carlson last night. The seventh of seven guests on his show. He started with a commentary about the FBI briefing Obama about Russia with conservative Byron York as his first guest.
Followed by a report by Griff Jenkins about California's illegal alien problem.
He then had liberal Cathy Areu on to discuss illegal aliens being allowed to vote (something she supports).
This was followed by of his interview of liberal Jennifer Palmieri to discuss gun control.
Then he had liberal Richard Goodstein to discuss gun control.
Followed by another excerpt of his interview with Jennifer Palmieri.
Then conservative Mark Steyn to discuss Palmieri.
Then had Fabio on to talk about his experience as a California resident.
The show ended with two Fox reporters playing the Final Exam game answering political questions.
Now, if you watched the show, you would know of all this. But if you're a dishonest liberal hack, the show was just about Fabio.
Like I said, come correct. :)
-
How about it's none of your fucking business what and how many weapons I have
That certainly is one way to discuss it. Do you happen to own a Thompson Machine gun? Perhaps a sawed off shot gun?
-
He is a cop - a fake ass cop at that - part of the nanny state that feeds off the tax dollars of those of us who actually produce revenue for the society.
I often wonder how you function as a lawyer. Your demeanor, writing and thought process doesn't really make me think "lawyer" or even "white collar" but I don't doubt you are what you claim to be.
-
I often wonder how you function as a lawyer. Your demeanor, writing and thought process doesn't really make me think "lawyer" or even "white collar" but I don't doubt you are what you claim to be.
My thought process is perfectly fine. Like myself and others have said - never ever have come across a left wing crack pot cop before so into the far left wing nuttiness - but so be it.
-
That certainly is one way to discuss it. Do you happen to own a Thompson Machine gun? Perhaps a sawed off shot gun?
There is nothing to discuss the 2nd amendment is the law, so it is exactly none of your fucking business what I own, donut muncher.
The more I read about what James Madison has written about why the bill of rights exist, the more i believe any infringement by the government is unconstitutional.
-
There is nothing to discuss the 2nd amendment is the law, so it is exactly none of your fucking business what I own, donut muncher.
The more I read about what James Madison has written about why the bill of rights exist, the more i believe any infringement by the government is unconstitutional.
:)
-
My thought process is perfectly fine. Like myself and others have said - never ever have come across a left wing crack pot cop before so into the far left wing nuttiness - but so be it.
By left wing you must mean someone who questions whether military style weapons designed solely to kill humans needs to be a part of our personal arsenal? Why high capacity magazines are required? Ok guilty of being a left wing crack pot. ::)
-
By left wing you must mean someone who questions whether military style weapons designed solely to kill humans needs to be a part of our personal arsenal? Why high capacity magazines are required? Ok guilty of being a left wing crack pot. ::)
Do you consider all semi auto firearms are military style? or is it just how they look?
-
Do you consider all semi auto firearms are military style? or is it just how they look?
Don't even bother with this assclown, the AR-15 has been around since 1959, now all of the sudden its an unmatched death machine.
-
Don't even bother with this assclown, the AR-15 has been around since 1959, now all of the sudden its an unmatched death machine.
Its no different than someone still thinking a dragster w a replaced 4 cylinder engine is still a dragster. Functionally, an AR15 is no different than any other weapon out there.
But to some it looks scary therefore it must be banned.
-
Its no different than someone still thinking a dragster w a replaced 4 cylinder engine is still a dragster. Functionally, an AR15 is no different than any other weapon out there.
But to some it looks scary therefore it must be banned.
Yep he just repeats all the buzz words, they mean absolutely nothing but boy they sound good.
Then there is this.............
https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 (https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5)
-
Yep he just repeats all the buzz words, they mean absolutely nothing but boy they sound good.
Then there is this.............
https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 (https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5)
Its astounding the money we pay to "law enforcement" who are shown over and over and over to be incompetent and next to useless in stopping crimes and the response by these ass-clowns is to relinquish our rights. The cops, sheriff, FBI - etc they are to blame for that Florida mess, not the NRA.
-
Its astounding the money we pay to "law enforcement" who are shown over and over and over to be incompetent and next to useless in stopping crimes and the response by these ass-clowns is to relinquish our rights. The cops, sheriff, FBI - etc they are to blame for that Florida mess, not the NRA.
The supreme court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you, they are there to enforce the law. So all you shelter in place and
wait for the police to be executed, good luck. People have decided to surrender their right to self defense in hopes that someone else is going to do it.
-
How about it's none of your fucking business what and how many weapons I have
Precisely.
-
Not to simplify your post.. but does the good guy with a gun need an Ar 15 to protect his family, and does he need a high capacity round? Because for the most part, that is the argument.
Due to an attempt to take them away? If so, then your question should ask why it's happening.
Because without a reasonable explanation, the answer to your actual question is obvious. Yes, he may figure on needing those things.
That's the sad (but true) reality. The go-to response of "why let people do this?" and "why let people do that" isn't valid to a serious person.
-
Do you consider all semi auto firearms are military style? or is it just how they look?
If it was designed with the sole purpose of killing humans like the M-16, Thompson, and AK-47 that would be military style.
-
If it was designed with the sole purpose of killing humans like the M-16, Thompson, and AK-47 that would be military style.
Handguns, the weapon of choice for mass murderers in the U.S., are designed with the sole purpose of killing humans. Other than hunting rifles, you can say that about all firearms.
-
Handguns, the weapon of choice for mass murderers in the U.S., are designed with the sole purpose of killing humans. Other than hunting rifles, you can say that about all firearms.
That is a good point and I should have qualified the description by adding long rifle.
-
No one is advocating confiscating 300 million firearms. It is a false argument put forward by the right.. and it seems to be working given it gets repeated so much
Really? So you haven't seen the tons of pictures out there with "protestors" holding signs that say "yes we want to take your guns"?
-
What is he babbling about? It's almost incoherent.
Biden: ‘The 2nd Amendment Is Being Very Badly Interpreted’ – There Is ‘Prostitution of the 2nd Amendment’
by IAN HANCHETT
30 Mar 2018
During a discussion at the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday, former Vice President Joe Biden stated that the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted “badly” and the nation has decided it can’t ignore the “prostitution” of the amendment.
Biden said, “I think there’s a 2nd Amendment. I think the 2nd Amendment is being very badly interpreted. It’s not consistent with what they’re — our founders intended, in my view. You saw Justice John Paul Stevens say that we should — because it’s been so prostituted, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. It was about a standing militia. It’s a long story. I won’t go into all the legal side of that having taught it in law school. But there’s rational or irrational policy.”
He added, “What’s happened here is, the nation as a whole has decided it can no longer, in my view, continue to turn a blind eye to the prostitution of the 2nd Amendment here, and no longer can turn a blind eye to the enormous damage being done, not just in our schools, but on our streets, right here in Philly and Wilmington, Delaware, where I’m from, every night.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/03/30/biden-2nd-amendment-badly-interpreted-prostitution-2nd-amendment/
-
If it was designed with the sole purpose of killing humans like the M-16, Thompson, and AK-47 that would be military style.
You ignorant fuck, you have no idea what you are talking about as usual.
You don't like the bill of rights, I suggest you find another country to live in.
-
You ignorant fuck, you have no idea what you are talking about as usual.
You don't like the bill of rights, I suggest you find another country to live in.
And Kazan goes on the "too unhinged to hold a conversation" list. Congrats
-
Not to simplify your post.. but does the good guy with a gun need an Ar 15 to protect his family, and does he need a high capacity round? Because for the most part, that is the argument.
In my opinion yes, I need an AR15 and 30 rnd mags to protect myself and my family from a tyrannical and invasive government, that is why the 2nd was written, right?
-
In my opinion yes, I need an AR15 and 30 rnd mags to protect myself and my family from a tyrannical and invasive government, that is why the 2nd was written, right?
perhaps, but as times change, it seems like a rewrite is due. The government doesn't have muskets now.
-
perhaps, but as times change, it seems like a rewrite is due. The government doesn't have muskets now.
Then how do you explain the idea of stepping-up restriction on our arms?
How's that work?
-
If it was designed with the sole purpose of killing humans like the M-16, Thompson, and AK-47 that would be military style.
What if one is in the process of trying to kill you?
???
-
The inescapable flaw in an anti-gun argument, is that it relies on pointing out the fact there are potential killers among us.
-
The inescapable flaw in an anti-gun argument, is that it relies on pointing out the fact there are potential killers among us.
Would be awesome don't you think, if potential killers didn't have access to high capacity military style rifles?
-
Would be awesome don't you think, if potential killers didn't have access to high capacity military style rifles?
Do you think making them illegal is going to stop people from getting ARs and standard capacity mags?
-
Would be awesome don't you think, if potential killers didn't have access to high capacity military style rifles?
I don't know that'd be true, for one thing. More importantly, I can't expect it to "magically" remove his desire to kill - even if it were true.
Bottom line, I know better than to expect those things. So should you.
-
What you need to understand, is this: A reasonable person has guns not to be violent, but to be peaceful. To remain in peace, to exist within a peaceful mind, which is in perfect accordance with his/her rights.
So when you attempt to take away guns, you are (in fact) telling individuals that they can't have peace. That it's no longer on the table to enjoy peace, but for reasons you cannot explain. Now, that's some kinda mysterious and freaky shit that cannot hold ground. Really, how do you expect them to receive your message? Do you think they'll see you as friend, or rather as foe? As a dumbass, maybe, in the best scenario?
Problem for you, as someone who wants to take guns, is that no argument can help you. Nothing. Not a single shred nor trace of reason exists within our shared reality, for you to rely upon. SO, by that, your message has made you into an enemy (or a pesky dumbass, at best). By your own choice. That's on you.
Sorry, m'boys, but we rely on one another for reasoning. That's what we're here for.
-
Do you think making them illegal is going to stop people from getting ARs and standard capacity mags?
I look at Thompson Machine guns as an example. Not many of them around.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.daabd6bba97e
Here is an article from a researcher, and it contains information from people who study this for a living.
"Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”
The opinion is shared among many researchers who study gun violence for a living. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard's David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.
On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed."
-
I look at Thompson Machine guns as an example. Not many of them around.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.daabd6bba97e
Here is an article from a researcher, and it contains information from people who study this for a living.
"Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”
The opinion is shared among many researchers who study gun violence for a living. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard's David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.
On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed."
Don't feel like looking it up now but there's been other studies done that show "assault weapon" bans were ineffective in the number of murders committed.
These people that study this stuff for a living will almost always find the info that they want to believe and skew the results towards their personal interests.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
2016 stats....
Less than 400 people murdered with rifles, including the evil "assault weapons" you want to see banned, yet 4 times that many people were stabbed to death, nobody calling for the ban of knives.
-
I look at Thompson Machine guns as an example. Not many of them around.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.daabd6bba97e
Here is an article from a researcher, and it contains information from people who study this for a living.
"Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”
The opinion is shared among many researchers who study gun violence for a living. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard's David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.
On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed."
The term “assault weapon” is not used by federal law enforcement for statistics, so we don’t know how many of these rifles used in homicides are “assault weapons.” As stated above, folks use knives to kill 4x as many as they do with rifles.
The piece uses the term “military-style,” but that’s just based on appearance as opposed to actual function. Marines don’t use the AR-15. The piece uses the term “gun massacre” but doesn’t state how many involved handguns or rifles, let alone “assault weapons.”
Handguns are used in more than 7,000 murders each year, and just about all are semiautomatic. The worst on-campus shooting was at Virginia Tech: 32 slaughtered and another 17 shot with two handguns. Bastard had 19 magazines, mostly 10-round. One Columbine shooter had thirteen 10-round magazines. The Florida school shooter used 10-round magazines.
California now limits magazines to 10 or fewer rounds, but that just makes those who own larger magazines criminals.
It’s not about the magazine.
(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-19-at-12.04.28-PM.png)
-
And Kazan goes on the "too unhinged to hold a conversation" list. Congrats
And you have been on the list of dumbass's that don't know what they are talking about for sometime now.
-
Article V : “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
There it is, what are the gun grabbers waiting for? No instead you play the, well we only want "common sense" gun laws ::),trying to subvert the constitution.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-975eBqv5EZQ/Wr0PiaxVNII/AAAAAAAAO5s/qh72Ca722U8pr0shytNdYjVkZx2J3ad6QCJoC/w530-h893-n/53aa36484c7f9f1-a-nw-p.jpg)
-
Published data is limited in what it can show. Information surfaces to be gathered when the worst cases play out, for the obvious reason that they've become notable. The problem with that, is it lends itself to an idea that guns and related items are purely offensive tools used by criminals.
The best cases, in which everyone gets to keep their lives and limbs (and brain matter) intact, aren't going to generate public information to be related to guns. The cases of potential threat being altogether neutralized, aren't going to generate any public information. Few, if any, positive outcomes are going to generate information in that way.
It does show information-gathering throws itself at the feet of the anti-gun crew, though, and they still can't get it together. Maybe that ought to tell them something during the rare times they may question their beliefs.
-
Btw :) No one here's my enemy, just want to say. Anyone willing to try to work it out, and who appears to entertain ideas, is OK in my book. The ones who run around with broken ideas and deaf ears? Not so much.
-
Isn't it funny to wonder if J.P. Stevens only wanted to blow the cover off these fuckers, and nothing else? Seems he did it at just the right time, for sure.
No, but still. That's what happened and it's a good thing for it to be in the open, finally. We all knew it, but now no one can hide behind the lies.
-
SHALL NOT INFRINGE
-
Isn't it funny to wonder if J.P. Stevens only wanted to blow the cover off these fuckers, and nothing else? Seems he did it at just the right time, for sure.
No, but still. That's what happened and it's a good thing for it to be in the open, finally. We all knew it, but now no one can hide behind the lies.
Stevens is a Republican.. to use him to say Democrats are wanting to take your guns is misleading. Not saying you are doing this but it's being done. And as I said before, saying "no one wants" is probably wrong. Saying the vast majority of Democrats do not want to take your right to own a gun away is probably true.
-
SHALL NOT INFRINGE
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.
What does it mean?
Well regulated means well supplied and trained, not what people think regulated means today. Why would the militia be the safe guard against a tyrannical government, yet then allow that government to "regulate" it?
They felt so strongly that the militia is necessary for the security of the free state, they put it in the bill of rights.
Then they say the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why the people and not the militia? Because they did not believe the right to bear arms only applied to members of the militia.
They also say Arms and not muskets or whatever weapon was prevalent at that time. When people say that it only applies to muskets, that is like saying well then only print news is protected by the 1st amendment because freedom of the press, at the time meant the printing press.
Its not that hard to find intent, simply read the Federalist papers. They specifically discuss the right to self defense of the individual
-
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.
What does it mean?
Well regulated means well supplied and trained, not what people think regulated means today. Why would the militia be the safe guard against a tyrannical government, yet then allow that government to "regulate" it?
They felt so strongly that the militia is necessary for the security of the free state.
Then they say the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why the people and not the militia? Because they did not believe the right to bear arms only applied to members of the militia.
They also say Arms and not muskets or whatever weapon was prevalent at that time. When people say that it only applies to muskets, that is like saying well then only print news is protected by the 1st amendment because freedom of the press, at the time meant the printing press.
Its not that hard to find intent, simply read the Federalist papers. They specifically discuss the right to self defense of the individual
Good post.
-
Stevens is a Republican.. to use him to say Democrats are wanting to take your guns is misleading. Not saying you are doing this but it's being done. And as I said before, saying "no one wants" is probably wrong. Saying the vast majority of Democrats do not want to take your right to own a gun away is probably true.
Nothing to say about the chart above?
-
Nothing to say about the chart above?
N ANALYSIS OF MASS shootings in the United States of America reveals one variable that has remained remarkably consistent over time: The use of detachable, high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges.
A recent study of mass shootings by the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City identified 30 such incidents from 1984 until the present in which semiautomatic firearms (either handguns or long guns) and high-capacity ammunition magazines were used. This includes Virginia Tech (2007), Northern Illinois University (2008), Fort Hood (2009), Tucson (2011), Aurora (2012), Oak Creek (2012), and Sandy Hook (2012).
[See a collection of political cartoons on gun control and gun rights.]
It is notable that several of these shootings were stopped when the gunman attempted to reload his firearm, including the 1993 shooting on the Long Island Railroad, the 1998 shooting at Thurston High School in Oregon and, of course, Tucson.
In a dramatic statement made in an Arizona courtroom in November, Tucson victim Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly made it clear that politicians who refuse to see the connection between mass murder and high-capacity ammunition magazines are being willfully blind:
Notice how above the chart, it says the Virginia tech shooter had X number of magazines, most of them 10 round. It doesn't include the fact that out of X number, there were also 15 round and they were initially used.
I concede the point if someone is determined to kill people they will do it with a musket if that is what they have available. And handguns aren't going away any time soon, but I think most people whether they are 1st responders or potential victims, will fare much better against a person with a handgun than a long gun. Especially a long gun with a lot of rounds. Why is it that I can't legally hunt a duck with more than 3 rounds in the chamber, but Bubba can have an AR15 with 30 round magazines?
-
Because the 2nd wasn't written for hunting. And we were comparing rifle deaths to stabbings, not pistols. You're more likely to be beaten to death with a blunt object or stabbed to death, than to be shot with an AR-15 style rifle.
Nobody calling for the ban of blunt objects or knives? Or even handguns?
-
Because the 2nd wasn't written for hunting. And we were comparing rifle deaths to stabbings, not pistols. You're more likely to be beaten to death with a blunt object or stabbed to death, than to be shot with an AR-15 style rifle.
Nobody calling for the ban of blunt objects or knives? Or even handguns?
and there are way more deaths from auto crashes than with guns but nobody is calling for a ban on cars...
-
and there are way more deaths from auto crashes than with guns but nobody is calling for a ban on cars...
Why do you think politicians are so adamant about banning something that is involved in so few deaths?
-
(http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/lesson_plans/auschwitz_album/images/album9b.jpg)
easier to get you in the box cars
-
Why do you think politicians are so adamant about banning something that is involved in so few deaths?
And yet they're looking to get those out of the way, first. ???
Damn fine question.
-
Stevens is a Republican.. to use him to say Democrats are wanting to take your guns is misleading. Not saying you are doing this but it's being done. And as I said before, saying "no one wants" is probably wrong. Saying the vast majority of Democrats do not want to take your right to own a gun away is probably true.
No, I wasn't trying to make a connection like that (as you so generously noticed).
-
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.
What does it mean?
Well regulated means well supplied and trained, not what people think regulated means today. Why would the militia be the safe guard against a tyrannical government, yet then allow that government to "regulate" it?
They felt so strongly that the militia is necessary for the security of the free state, they put it in the bill of rights.
Then they say the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why the people and not the militia? Because they did not believe the right to bear arms only applied to members of the militia.
They also say Arms and not muskets or whatever weapon was prevalent at that time. When people say that it only applies to muskets, that is like saying well then only print news is protected by the 1st amendment because freedom of the press, at the time meant the printing press.
Its not that hard to find intent, simply read the Federalist papers. They specifically discuss the right to self defense of the individual
Nice, Kazan. But don't forget we're talking about "a relic from the 18th century", when people couldn't read into the future as we do today with such ease. Even our teenagers do it, bro. What more do you need to feel safe?
Nevermind that human nature hasn't changed one bit. And please ignore the new reality of information-processing, which has raised the risk for political misdirection through the roof and raises it more every day.
Oh, and if you need to protect yourself from typical crime, don't worry. Just get in line for your Pea-Shooting Permit. Your illegal weapons were shipped to China and turned into vacuum cleaners for export.
-
Nice, Kazan. But don't forget we're talking about "a relic from the 18th century", when people couldn't read into the future as we do today with such ease. Even our teenagers do it, bro. What more do you need to feel safe?
Nevermind that human nature hasn't changed one bit. And please ignore the new reality of information-processing, which has raised the risk for political misdirection through the roof and raises it more every day.
Oh, and if you need to protect yourself from typical crime, don't worry. Just get in line for your Pea-Shooting Permit. Your illegal weapons were shipped to China and turned into vacuum cleaners for export.
Good explanation on Saturday night live about the founding fathers and what they would think about what we think of the 2nd amendment. google it
-
If there is a problem cant solve with my Beretta automatic shotgun or my M&P 40 then I give up
-
Nice, Kazan. But don't forget we're talking about "a relic from the 18th century", when people couldn't read into the future as we do today with such ease. Even our teenagers do it, bro. What more do you need to feel safe?
Nevermind that human nature hasn't changed one bit. And please ignore the new reality of information-processing, which has raised the risk for political misdirection through the roof and raises it more every day.
Oh, and if you need to protect yourself from typical crime, don't worry. Just get in line for your Pea-Shooting Permit. Your illegal weapons were shipped to China and turned into vacuum cleaners for export.
It all comes down to opinion, not fact. Why do you need an AR-15? Because it is my right, and if I am a law abiding citizen, why do you care? People don't seem to understand the difference between a right and privilege, you don't have to ask permission for a right. Thank God for James Madison, can you image in the mess we would have today without the Bill of Rights......
-
Good explanation on Saturday night live about the founding fathers and what they would think about what we think of the 2nd amendment. google it
SNL is all about MSM, and MSM is all about deception. That much has shown itself to be true, imo.
But I'll look at it, based on your recommendation. Judging by your description, though, I can only say the FF couldn't have imagined how badly we'd destroy society. If they could look into the future, they'd swear we were retaken by Elitists (to our own stupid peril).
That's why concern for protection was, and still is, the point. Without that, no such thing as America.
-
It all comes down to opinion, not fact. Why do you need an AR-15? Because it is my right, and if I am a law abiding citizen, why do you care? People don't seem to understand the difference between a right and privilege, you don't have to ask permission for a right. Thank God for James Madison, can you image in the mess we would have today without the Bill of Rights......
Agreed. The "why let people do this?" thing has no end, and it runs counter to what we're about. The worst go-to out there. It doesn't work without reason, unless a person's screws are loose and extensive brainwashing has taken place.
-
If there is a problem cant solve with my Beretta automatic shotgun or my M&P 40 then I give up
But isn't it a capability to allow the opposite to happen, really, that's on the line?
-
Agreed. The "why let people do this?" thing has no end, and it runs counter to what we're about. The worst go-to out there. It doesn't work without reason, unless a person's screws are loose and extensive brainwashing has taken place.
Freedom is a strange thing.
-
Stevens is a Republican.. to use him to say Democrats are wanting to take your guns is misleading. Not saying you are doing this but it's being done. And as I said before, saying "no one wants" is probably wrong. Saying the vast majority of Democrats do not want to take your right to own a gun away is probably true.
In the same way that Joe Scarborough is a Republican.
-
And so it begins -
Seattle PD has begun enforcing their "Red Flag" law.
Cloud Act, domestic data aggregation, NDAA allowing the disappearing of folks - what could possibly go wrong...
-
It all comes down to opinion, not fact. Why do you need an AR-15? Because it is my right, and if I am a law abiding citizen, why do you care? People don't seem to understand the difference between a right and privilege, you don't have to ask permission for a right. Thank God for James Madison, can you image in the mess we would have today without the Bill of Rights......
More credit to George Mason that to Madison.
"The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason principally authored, served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights, of which he has been deemed the father."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason
-
And so it begins -
Seattle PD has begun enforcing their "Red Flag" law.
Cloud Act, domestic data aggregation, NDAA allowing the disappearing of folks - what could possibly go wrong...
Once again, Kazan: Agreed.
It looks exactly as one would expect an attack from outside to be. Now any old cheapshit nation with its cheapshit laws can be used for cover, to attack us without concern for our own laws. My word, if this isn't our disintegration in action: WTF are we seeing?
-
And so it begins -
Seattle PD has begun enforcing their "Red Flag" law.
Cloud Act, domestic data aggregation, NDAA allowing the disappearing of folks - what could possibly go wrong...
Is this the story?
<<< Police said they had received multiple calls about McKenzie’s escalating behavior in the past year.
McKenzie voluntarily surrendered a gun in 2017 after he was served with an anti-harassment order, even though he wasn’t required to do so. He acknowledged he was experiencing "stress" and did not want the gun around, Michaud said.
Months later, McKenzie, who lives above a restaurant, had several interactions with the restaurant staff. In one instance, he stood in front of the restaurant and yelled obscenities and accused people of talking to him through the floor.
"No crimes were committed at that time, but his behavior was erratic and unnerving to all; resulting in contact" by police, Michaud said.
McKenzie declined services, but shortly thereafter he called police again to report "taunting and voices" coming from the restaurant below through the floor.
He also told police that he was armed with a gun and wanted a female employee "arrested or shot" by police, Michaud said.
McKenzie was ultimately taken to a medical facility. >>>
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/14/liberty-headlines/no-seattle-police-didnt-use-red-flag-law-seize-man/
-
Is this the story?
<<< Police said they had received multiple calls about McKenzie’s escalating behavior in the past year.
McKenzie voluntarily surrendered a gun in 2017 after he was served with an anti-harassment order, even though he wasn’t required to do so. He acknowledged he was experiencing "stress" and did not want the gun around, Michaud said.
Months later, McKenzie, who lives above a restaurant, had several interactions with the restaurant staff. In one instance, he stood in front of the restaurant and yelled obscenities and accused people of talking to him through the floor.
"No crimes were committed at that time, but his behavior was erratic and unnerving to all; resulting in contact" by police, Michaud said.
McKenzie declined services, but shortly thereafter he called police again to report "taunting and voices" coming from the restaurant below through the floor.
He also told police that he was armed with a gun and wanted a female employee "arrested or shot" by police, Michaud said.
McKenzie was ultimately taken to a medical facility. >>>
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/14/liberty-headlines/no-seattle-police-didnt-use-red-flag-law-seize-man/
probably
-
Good explanation on Saturday night live about the founding fathers and what they would think about what we think of the 2nd amendment. google it
So a "comedy" skit show figured out what our forefathers meant and I'm supposed to take that seriously?
-
So a "comedy" skit show figured out what our forefathers meant and I'm supposed to take that seriously?
If you want to. I think often times there is truth in comedy. George Carlin is a good example. Have you seen the skit?
-
Good explanation on Saturday night live about the founding fathers and what they would think about what we think of the 2nd amendment. google it
If it's the "Constitutional Corner" thing you meant, I found it. Lovely how the underlying theme includes making them too stupid to recognize how invention would naturally progress. That's the "extra special" dig to it, I suppose, in case anyone thinks they deserve to be seen in any other way but clueless.
-
Linked for relevance: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=644175.0