Mass Shooting in Atlanta

[luthervol]

Here you go with the absurd.

Did they take away his right to own rocks?

Nope. Just his right to bang them together after the sun went down. Rational and reasonable.

 

[hog88]

Nope. Just his right to bang them together after the sun went down. Rational and reasonable.

He never had the right to bang them together if it affected his cave mates. Me owning a fully automatic laser blaster affects you in no way so respect my rights.

 

[WBO]

You guys missed the big 2nd Amendment arguments we had last summer. The problem is the right wing's desire to ignore the precursor statement regarding "a well regulated militia." What is the purpose of that phrase and doesn't it reflect something less than a total unrestrained right to own and bear?

When you go to the Federalists Papers and read what Madison, and others, wrote, you can see the 2nd Amendment becomes less about guns than it is about their resistance to a full-time professional military. They saw a large permanent military as the most likely pathway to a broad expansion of the power of the central government. They saw the state militias as the most effective barrier to the development of what we now call the "military industrial complex."

But of course with technological advances and massive costs, particularly in military equipment, there's no way the states could individually protect the country. That ship has sailed.

No one wants to talk about that "legislative history" (including certain Supreme Çourt justices) though because it supports the assertion that there is not an unmitigated right to own.

And before anyone wants to call me a gun hater, I own 10 different guns including 2 assault rifles and some related "class 3" devices, but I'm not opposed to regulations including registration.

 

[C-south]

You guys missed the big 2nd Amendment arguments we had last summer. The problem is the right wing's desire to ignore the precursor statement regarding "a well regulated militia." What is the purpose of that phrase and doesn't it reflect something less than a total unrestrained right to own and bear?

When you go to the Federalists Papers and read what Madison, and others, wrote, you can see the 2nd Amendment becomes less about guns than it is about their resistance to a full-time professional military. They saw a large permanent military as the most likely pathway to a broad expansion of the power of the central government. They saw the state militias as the most effective barrier to the development of what we now call the "military industrial complex."

But of course with technological advances and massive costs, particularly in military equipment, there's no way the states could individually protect the country. That ship has sailed.

No one wants to talk about that "legislative history" (including certain Supreme Çourt justices) though because it supports the assertion that there is not an unmitigated right to own.

And before anyone wants to call me a gun hater, I own 10 different guns including 2 assault rifles and some related "class 3" devices, but I'm not opposed to regulations including registration.

Because being a part of a well regulated militia isn’t the sole requirement. Also how do you know there aren’t any “well regulated militias”? The forefathers added a lot of context after they wrote the 2nd amendment so there’s really nothing to discuss.

 

[Orangeburst]

You guys missed the big 2nd Amendment arguments we had last summer. The problem is the right wing's desire to ignore the precursor statement regarding "a well regulated militia." What is the purpose of that phrase and doesn't it reflect something less than a total unrestrained right to own and bear?

When you go to the Federalists Papers and read what Madison, and others, wrote, you can see the 2nd Amendment becomes less about guns than it is about their resistance to a full-time professional military. They saw a large permanent military as the most likely pathway to a broad expansion of the power of the central government. They saw the state militias as the most effective barrier to the development of what we now call the "military industrial complex."

But of course with technological advances and massive costs, particularly in military equipment, there's no way the states could individually protect the country. That ship has sailed.

No one wants to talk about that "legislative history" (including certain Supreme Çourt justices) though because it supports the assertion that there is not an unmitigated right to own.

And before anyone wants to call me a gun hater, I own 10 different guns including 2 assault rifles and some related "class 3" devices, but I'm not opposed to regulations including registration.

Not buying that at all, other than pre Constitutional ratification debate. The US Army was already created in 1775.
Even so, if we have a professional army, which is anti Constitutional according to this theory, then what differnce does it make?

 

[hog88]

And before anyone wants to call me a gun hater, I own 10 different guns including 2 assault rifles and some related "class 3" devices, but I'm not opposed to regulations including registration.

I’m calling complete ******** on this. I can’t believe you went through the process to own 1, let alone 2 ”assault weapons”.

 

[hog88]

Not buying that at all, other than pre Constitutional ratification debate. The US Army was already created in 1775.
Even so, if we have a professional army, which is anti Constitutional according to this theory, then what differnce does it make?

The guy and those like him always ignore the comma.

 

[luthervol]

He never had the right to bang them together if it affected his cave mates. Me owning a fully automatic laser blaster affects you in no way so respect my rights.

The wide spread distribution and misuse of fully automatic laser blasters may very well affect me and others. Even to the point of it becoming necessary to enact rational and reasonable rules and regulations.

 

[hog88]

The wide spread distribution and misuse of fully automatic laser blasters may very well affect me and others. Even to the point of it becoming necessary to enact rational and reasonable rules and regulations.

Then punish the people that use them to harm you or others and leave the rest of us alone. That is how a just society works.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You guys missed the big 2nd Amendment arguments we had last summer. The problem is the right wing's desire to ignore the precursor statement regarding "a well regulated militia." What is the purpose of that phrase and doesn't it reflect something less than a total unrestrained right to own and bear?

When you go to the Federalists Papers and read what Madison, and others, wrote, you can see the 2nd Amendment becomes less about guns than it is about their resistance to a full-time professional military. They saw a large permanent military as the most likely pathway to a broad expansion of the power of the central government. They saw the state militias as the most effective barrier to the development of what we now call the "military industrial complex."

But of course with technological advances and massive costs, particularly in military equipment, there's no way the states could individually protect the country. That ship has sailed.

No one wants to talk about that "legislative history" (including certain Supreme Çourt justices) though because it supports the assertion that there is not an unmitigated right to own.

And before anyone wants to call me a gun hater, I own 10 different guns including 2 assault rifles and some related "class 3" devices, but I'm not opposed to regulations including registration.

You could not be more basically wrong if you tried and we pointed this out to you before. “A well regulated militia” does not imply the people are a collective national guard under federal command. Scalia has written this in Heller. Just stop with the dumbassery

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Weezer]

I was curious if you guys have.

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity
But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.​

Washington’s pastors in Philadelphia clearly viewed him as significantly influenced by Deism.

That is not one of our nation's historical documents. The Declaration of Independence is clear, and speaks for itself. You're playing a game of deflection, and you're losing.

 

[luthervol]

That is not one of our nation's historical documents. The Declaration of Independence is clear, and speaks for itself. You're playing a game of deflection, and you're losing.

First paragraph:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

[Weezer]

First paragraph:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And they go on to use the word "Creator". I'm not sure what your point is? Our rights are derived from our very creation. Freedom of religion allows us to decide how and who created us. We have rights because we exist. I think therefore I am. The government does not give us rights. Government exists by the consent of the governed. It's pretty clearly stated. Try reading the entire document rather than cherry picking to try and support a weak argument.

 

[AM64]

I am not. I just don't see anywhere else besides the American Constitution where guns as described as a God given right.

I don't see where the Constitution gives you a right to own a car or an iPhone either. There is a largely ignored phrase (10th Amendment) about "all other things", too. Apparently your team just likes to pick and choose which rights are right and who controls them.

 

[AM64]

Cool, so we can defend ourselves with other tools

Sure. If a gun isn't available, there are all kinds of other implements around the house ... knives, forks, spoons, maybe a baseball bat or golf club, chairs, even fists ... maybe an overly protective dog. Don't threaten someone, and it's likely not an issue.

 

[C-south]

Cool, so we can defend ourselves with other tools

I prefer the best. I never understand why dims think people should just match up with criminals.

 

[AM64]

I never said everyone has to agree with a law for it to be a valid and needed law.

Beecher brought up the concept of traffic laws earlier. Some laws are arbitrary and some are essential, and governments from local to federal have forgotten the concept "valid and needed" law. You could argue that a lot of traffic law is unneeded, but it's hard to argue against one that keeps cars going in different directions out of an intersection at the same time. We have laws against murder; that doesn't stop people from killing with whatever implement is handy, so why do you think gun prohibition would end murder?

We have rights under the Constitution permitting us to assemble, address, and petition government; yet when some people did that very thing because government wasn't listening, you'd think the sky fell in - never mind a summer of other people doing worse in a different venue. Something in me says it makes a lot more sense to directly take grievances against government out on government than burning and looting a CVS on the way to the courthouse, or depriving others of freedom of commerce and movement.

 

[AM64]

Because being a part of a well regulated militia isn’t the sole requirement. Also how do you know there aren’t any “well regulated militias”? The forefathers added a lot of context after they wrote the 2nd amendment so there’s really nothing to discuss.

Besides it seems like militias (especially the effectively regulated ones) are considered terrorist organizations today - they tend to threaten government control for starters.

 

[C-south]

Besides it seems like militias (especially the effectively regulated ones) are considered terrorist organizations today - they tend to threaten government control for starters.

I agree and any militia will be viewed the same. I like how the state of SC is proposing legislation to recognize everyone over the age of 17 as part of a militia unless they choose not to be.

 

[AM64]

The guy and those like him always ignore the comma.

Semicolons, too - libs especially love to mix commas and semicolons. Great example:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't say a thing about protesting in the streets and being a general ass to the detriment of others when supposedly "addressing" government.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yes, why is that even a question?

It’s the way her brain “works” apparently. The not so obvious conclusion.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Cool, so we can defend ourselves with other tools

Feel free to use whatever tool you like. I hope criminals think like you do but alas they don’t. They won’t bring a rock to a gun fight but you do you

 

[BeecherVol]

I never said everyone has to agree with a law for it to be a valid and needed law.

"Vaild" and "needed" are a matter of opinion that requires some level of agreement for a law.

And thats still ignores the main factor.

 

[BeecherVol]

Beecher brought up the concept of traffic laws earlier. Some laws are arbitrary and some are essential, and governments from local to federal have forgotten the concept "valid and needed" law. You could argue that a lot of traffic law is unneeded, but it's hard to argue against one that keeps cars going in different directions out of an intersection at the same time. We have laws against murder; that doesn't stop people from killing with whatever implement is handy, so why do you think gun prohibition would end murder?

We have rights under the Constitution permitting us to assemble, address, and petition government; yet when some people did that very thing because government wasn't listening, you'd think the sky fell in - never mind a summer of other people doing worse in a different venue. Something in me says it makes a lot more sense to directly take grievances against government out on government than burning and looting a CVS on the way to the courthouse, or depriving others of freedom of commerce and movement.

My grandaddy had a saying that comes to mind in regards to locks.
"All a lock does is keep the honest man out"

Or basically laws only matter from the sense of prevention to those that want to abide by them. You can't change intention with a law. Look no further than states or cities with strict gun laws. The law provides a means of punishment after the fact. It won't remove intent.

 

[Tastylicks]

Feel free to use whatever tool you like. I hope criminals think like you do but alas they don’t. They won’t bring a rock to a gun fight but you do you

We want to allow terrorists to bring guns on airplanes on this website