School Shooting in Knoxville

[NorthDallas40]

What do you know, there seems to be multiple definitions.

BTW your own definitions work against you. In the context of the government infringing on the citizens by your own definition they may not encroach or violate on the critizens rights. U LOSE AGAIN

 

[NorthDallas40]

It's clear that rational and reasonable restrictions are constitutionally allowed.

I guess that's what you mean.?.?.?

BTW your own definitions work against you. In the context of the government infringing on the citizens by your own definition they may not encroach or violate on the critizens rights. U LOSE AGAIN

 

[OHvol40]

Because people are killed by illegal immigrants every year. Is one American life worth being “humane” to people who are coming here because it’s more convenient? Could we do a lot more to prevent it? People coming to the border with smartphones and designer clothing aren’t having that rough. Regardless they live in a country with a structured government, military, etc.....fix it! There’s nothing complex about it, send them back immediately and let them do it the right way.

That’s a whooooole lot of hyperbole for one post.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

Doesn’t matter, it was used as one.

Another extreme exception and LMFAO, it's hypothetical!☺

 

[C-south]

That’s a whooooole lot of hyperbole for one post.

Only to the willful ignorant.

 

[allvol123]

Just another comment on the greatness of bureaucracy and governing in general.

So the BOE mandated clear back packs at AE weeks ago. Amazing how well that worked.

 

[davethevol]

It's clear that rational and reasonable restrictions are constitutionally allowed.

I guess that's what you mean.?.?.?

No they aren’t. Congress got around it by using the ATF. Technically speaking, the what the ATF does with firearms is illegal.

 

[hog88]

Another extreme exception and LMFAO, it's hypothetical!☺

And? You (or anyone) have yet to explain what the “purpose” or “reason it was invented” has to do with the 2A.

 

[luthervol]

No they aren’t. Congress got around it by using the ATF. Technically speaking, the what the ATF does with firearms is illegal.

lol.........ok, but you might want to tell the SC.

The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

Our nation’s highest court has consistently recognized that the Second Amendment is compatible with strong firearm regulations.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

 

[Rickyvol77]

That's all true, BUT no one buys an automobile to use as a weapon

Don't tell Timothy McVeigh that

 

[utvolpj]

infringe
verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In

in·fringe | \ in-ˈfrinj \
infringed; infringing
Definition of infringe

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Thanks for posting. This is the exact definition you need to read over and over

"Violates ....the Rights of another"

 

[davethevol]

lol.........ok, but you might want to tell the SC.

The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

Our nation’s highest court has consistently recognized that the Second Amendment is compatible with strong firearm regulations.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

The Supreme Court has upheld unconstitutional laws/rules, with one of the most obvious being DUI checkpoints. The constitution was written so that morons like you and me could understand it. The difference between us is that you are taking liberties and inferring things that simply don’t exist.

 

[RockyTop85]

I cannot help you any further. The conclusion you're drawing is not the conclusion my illustration is attempting.

You agreed with me that they were not similar. Running a non-analogous set of facts through the same rubric and yielding a different result is not absurd.

There’s nothing inherently absurd about laws that punish all of us for the mistakes of some. Happens all the time.

You’ve made yourself look foolish, not Luther.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It's clear that rational and reasonable restrictions are constitutionally allowed.

I guess that's what you mean.?.?.?

By reasonable you mean none.
We agree.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

And? You (or anyone) have yet to explain what the “purpose” or “reason it was invented” has to do with the 2A.

I'm a proponent of the 2a. My posts were totally irrelevant as to the 2a

 

[USAFgolferVol]

Don't tell Timothy McVeigh that

Ah yes, another extreme exception in an effort to support a weak opinion

 

[hog88]

I'm a proponent of the 2a. My posts were totally irrelevant as to the 2a

So what were you trying to get at?

 

[RockyTop85]

You agreed with me that they were not similar. Running a non-analogous set of facts through the same rubric and yielding a different result is not absurd.

There’s nothing inherently absurd about laws that punish all of us for the mistakes of some. Happens all the time.

You’ve made yourself look foolish, not Luther.

Hell, dram shop laws “limit bulk sales” by relying on the discretion of the pimply faced server kid to determine when you’re visibly intoxicated and safe to drive home. They’re more narrowly tailored than limiting every purchase to a single serving and push up to the line of when the activity is expected to become dangerous. So they’re a considerably closer analogy to @luthervol proposal than any attempt to retrofit Hog’s non-analogy has gotten.

Guess what! Dram shop laws are so absurd that they have only been passed in 35 states. How absurd!!!1!!!(one)!!!11!!1!!

Bottom line: Reasonable minds can differ in this subject and if your “analogy” that attempts to show the “absurdity” of another point has to be far more extreme than the original opinion, then the original opinion wasn’t that absurd to begin with and you’re the one being absurd.

Thanks for reading, I hope this will facilitate a more productive discussion on this issue.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Ah yes, another extreme exception in an effort to support a weak opinion

Well you said "no one" buys automobiles to kill people and that's not a factual statement

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Nm, I'm late with the news and posts

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Nm, I'm late with the news and posts

 

[RockyTop85]

lol.........ok, but you might want to tell the SC.

The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

Our nation’s highest court has consistently recognized that the Second Amendment is compatible with strong firearm regulations.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

And Heller didn’t overturn Miller, so the right is currently recognized as the ability to possess, (1) in your own home, (2) for a traditionally lawful purpose, (3) a weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

“United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 2812 - 2816.”

So that’s it in terms of the Supreme Court.

In terms of historical precedent, the 9th circuit recently went back to the 1300’s and traced restrictions on carrying weapons outside the home all the way to present day. I suspect most cases will do this from now on to appeal to Roberts and Kavanaugh.

This idea that the second amendment doesn’t allow any restriction on gun ownership is a product of modern propaganda. I do think we will move towards defining the second amendment, and as the Roberts court has done with the first amendment, it will be a libertarian definition, but Scalia’s dicta from Heller that you quoted is good to keep in mind as that happens.

 

[SamRebel35]

Nm, I'm late with the news and posts

Christ almighty.

"Mostly Peaceful Protests" coming to a city near you.

 

[SamRebel35]

Yes and some crackhead on Facebook live on MLK has circulated a video saying there is a police conspiracy to kill this black kid and that he had a gun but the officer shot himself to further kill this kid for no reason....LOL

Unfortunately, BLM and Antifa don't need much more than this conspiracy video to start "mostly peacefully protesting" in and around the area. I hope I'm wrong, but I can see broken store windows and fires in East Knoxville's future.

 

[allvol123]

Unfortunately, BLM and Antifa don't need much more than this conspiracy video to start "mostly peacefully protesting" in and around the area. I hope I'm wrong, but I can see broken store windows and fires in East Knoxville's future.

They were already at Knox County BOE meeting last night with their list of demands.