ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2015, 06:40 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2015 06:49 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(27-10-2015 10:45 PM)RinChi Wrote:  
(27-10-2015 09:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So the kids WOULDN'T be dead if they lived somewhere else ?
Hahaha
Get real.
BTW. I think for myself. I'm on no one's bandwagon.

Setting aside the Second Amendment, which you are dead wrong on, which by the way the Supreme Courts have reaffirmed. Hell even set aside all the quotes from the various founding fathers clearly expressing the meaning of the second amendment, it's bearing on individual rights, and the responsibility of the people to be ready to revolt against the government. Because all that was in the past, you are all about TODAY, dealing with the problems TODAY. Fine, please tell us what you would have the country do? Take away the rights given by the constitution from 320 million people? If your answer is yes, please explain how exactly this would work.

I'm sure you will cite Australia's wonderful success story, how they took all the guns away and solved thier mass shooting problem in one fell swoop. Unfortunately, that argument is a bunch of overblown bullshit. Australia's buyback at very best got only 1/3 of the weapons from it's citizens, and those are the very best numbers, the actual number is probably more like 1/5th. And who do you think turned over all those guns? Criminals? I think not, law abiding citizens, that's who. Another thing, Australia's gun violence rate had been dropping sharply for 15 years before they even passed the gun ban, by the time the buyback happened the number was so negligible the difference was hardly even statistically relevant. Studies have shown the only kind of deaths it even had an effect on was accidental gun deaths in the home.

So supposing congress somehow managed to pass something like this without a full scale revolt, tell us, how would they go about removing the 300 million guns in the homes of our citizens? Hell, even a fraction? How would they insure the guns they got were from the people who would use them for harm? Let's get practical.

You want to talk about Sandy Hook, okay. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, partial assault weapon ban, clip size limit, no vehicle carry, the works. The shooting was done on school grounds with a no guns policy. Would they still be alive in another country? Maybe, hell, I'll even give you probably. But let's get real here, that piece of trash took guns illegally from a family member, brought them onto a no gun zone, and used them to murder children. Please give me the law that would have stopped that.

If you want to blame something, lets try blaming the real causes of shit like this. How about the mental health system that piece of shit Ronald Reagan gutted in the 80s? How about the culture of complacency that has permeated America over the last few decades. The fact that no one looks out for each other anymore. People are so obsessed with thier own personal bullshit that they fail to notice even the most obvious warning signs right under thier nose.

I'm all for fixing the problem, but lets actually fix it and not let ourselves be fooled and become sheep for an anti-gun lobby who just wants the government to take away another of our freedoms. This nanny state shit needs to stop.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I am certainly no gun nut, I own 2 handguns and a rifle that are stored in a double locked vault in an exterior storage room. I strongly dislike guns to be honest, but I will never support anything that attempts to remove the liberties granted to us by the constitution. It's there for a reason, and on this specific point, a very very good reason.

I didn't propose a solution.
The fact is, if the Sandy Hook families lived anywhere else in advanced Western societies, their kids would still be alive. Clearly whatever we have is not working today. We are not safe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
And BTW, no one has the right to possess guns at all times, in all places. All they have to do, with no process AT ALL, is put up a sign that says, *this institution* bans guns on these premises, including many if not most government sites. So even the government, in practical reality gets that it is not reasonable.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 07:00 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(27-10-2015 09:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-10-2015 09:04 PM)jabeady Wrote:  Wrong. The 2A provides for a pool of armed citizens from which a militia can be drawn. Militiamen were required to supply their own weapons, therefore the 2A does, in fact, protect an individual's right to possess firearms. As virtually every SCOTUS decision on the subject has held. As long as the amendment is in force, regardless of its original rationale, the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is therefore inviolate. Further, the right to keep and bear arms is a *natural* right, not a political one, as stated by the Virginia ratification of the Constitution, which also called for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution:

Wrong. Totally wrong. You have the right to what is reasonable. Is it reasonable, in light of the danger posed to continue down the path we have now ? No. We have the right to be safe. No one can pursue happiness or be free unless that are safe and alive. We are not safe. Nothing is "inviolate" if it is/becomes unreasonable. The Constitution was set up to be a "living" document. they knew circumstances would change. The need to draw an armed militia is outdated, and now unreasonable. I don't care what Virginia said, or SCOTUS said in the PAST with respect to circumstances in the PAST. We now must deal with TODAY. The situation TODAY is unsafe, and unreasonable. The "reasonable" test trumps everything, always. It always has, and even the most conservative members of SCOTUS agree with that, including Antonin Scalia. The current level of gun violence is unreasonable. Courts, including SCOTUS have made huge mistakes, and have reversed themselves over all kinds of things. The kinds of arms people use today were not even invented at the time of the Second Amendment.

[Image: f9fd636e530d7e095090f665f291c37d.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2015 07:08 AM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 06:17 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(27-10-2015 09:04 PM)jabeady Wrote:  Wrong. The 2A provides for a pool of armed citizens from which a militia can be drawn. Militiamen were required to supply their own weapons, therefore the 2A does, in fact, protect an individual's right to possess firearms. As virtually every SCOTUS decision on the subject has held.

I'm running out the door for work and don't have a lot of time right now, but this statement is factually incorrect. There is very little jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment as compared to most of the other amendments, but the Supreme Court only very recently recognized a private right to gun ownership. It wasn't until 2008 and the Heller decision that the Court actually said that is what it means, and even that decision allows for restrictions on weapons. So, the statement that this has been the law of the land for 200+ years is flat out, unequivocally wrong.

The 2nd amendment is so clearly written, one wonders why it would ever even need to be before the supreme Court.

If one reads it straight through, it's plain reading is simple to understand. The first three words of the Constitution are "we the people."

It doesn't take a law degree to know who "the people" are in the 2nd amendment.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

The founders were very clear in their writings and speeches, I could probably spend an entire day posting their quotes on the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
28-10-2015, 07:02 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 07:00 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-10-2015 09:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. Totally wrong. You have the right to what is reasonable. Is it reasonable, in light of the danger posed to continue down the path we have now ? No. We have the right to be safe. No one can pursue happiness or be free unless that are safe and alive. We are not safe. Nothing is "inviolate" if it is/becomes unreasonable. The Constitution was set up to be a "living" document. they knew circumstances would change. The need to draw an armed militia is outdated, and now unreasonable. I don't care what Virginia said, or SCOTUS said in the PAST with respect to circumstances in the PAST. We now must deal with TODAY. The situation TODAY is unsafe, and unreasonable. The "reasonable" test trumps everything, always. It always has, and even the most conservative members of SCOTUS agree with that, including Antonin Scalia. The current level of gun violence is unreasonable. Courts, including SCOTUS have made huge mistakes, and have reversed themselves over all kinds of things. The kinds of arms people use today were not even invented at the time of the Second Amendment.

[Image: f9fd636e530d7e095090f665f291c37d.jpg]

There was no state army. Regardless of one's stance on guns at this period of time, that statement is quite simply wrong.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 07:02 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 07:00 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [Image: f9fd636e530d7e095090f665f291c37d.jpg]

There was no state army. Regardless of one's stance on guns at this period of time, that statement is quite simply wrong.

That sounds like it would be news to historians to learn that there were no state militias fighting against the British.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 07:25 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 07:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 07:02 AM)yakherder Wrote:  There was no state army. Regardless of one's stance on guns at this period of time, that statement is quite simply wrong.

That sounds like it would be news to historians to learn that there were no state militias fighting against the British.

There were indeed civilian paramilitary militias organized under individual states, but they were not uniformly equipped and held no defined allegiance to the country they were fighting for. Some were lucky enough to have a weapon from their militia's stock, others brought their own guns to the fight, and the rest hoped to pick up something off a dead British soldier. The origins of the 2nd amendment came from even before this, however, when it was critical for citizens to be armed and trained on their own in the absence of a force designated for their protection, which they preferred anyway. The state, as in the United States, did not organize and create a state run military force until after the turn of the century into the 1800s, and it wasn't for the British. It was due to our realization that protecting the nation had to be done beyond one's own borders, something armed citizens aren't exactly ideal for.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like yakherder's post
28-10-2015, 07:52 AM
ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 06:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And BTW, no one has the right to possess guns at all times, in all places. All they have to do, with no process AT ALL, is put up a sign that says, *this institution* bans guns on these premises, including many if not most government sites. So even the government, in practical reality gets that it is not reasonable.


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KUSA's post
28-10-2015, 08:02 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2015 08:07 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 07:52 AM)KUSA Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 06:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And BTW, no one has the right to possess guns at all times, in all places. All they have to do, with no process AT ALL, is put up a sign that says, *this institution* bans guns on these premises, including many if not most government sites. So even the government, in practical reality gets that it is not reasonable.


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Soooo.... Dumb question, but.... Does that mean criminals and the insane are not people...?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 08:02 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 07:52 AM)KUSA Wrote:  "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Soooo.... Does that mean criminals and the insane are not people...

I'd concede that if I were to interpret the constitution, and statements made shortly after it's introduction in an effort to better define its intent, with the same level of rational scrutiny as a computer interprets a programming language, about 99% of the laws on the books would probably be defined as unconstitutional.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 08:49 AM
ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 07:25 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 07:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That sounds like it would be news to historians to learn that there were no state militias fighting against the British.

There were indeed civilian paramilitary militias organized under individual states, but they were not uniformly equipped and held no defined allegiance to the country they were fighting for. Some were lucky enough to have a weapon from their militia's stock, others brought their own guns to the fight, and the rest hoped to pick up something off a dead British soldier. The origins of the 2nd amendment came from even before this, however, when it was critical for citizens to be armed and trained on their own in the absence of a force designated for their protection, which they preferred anyway. The state, as in the United States, did not organize and create a state run military force until after the turn of the century into the 1800s, and it wasn't for the British. It was due to our realization that protecting the nation had to be done beyond one's own borders, something armed citizens aren't exactly ideal for.

No one is debating the observation that there was no state militia before there was a state. Nor is he implying that formation of a national militia was coincident with the formation of the US.

His point (that I and others here clearly support) is that the wording implies that the state's and their militias be protected from disarmament in order for state level protection.

But let's say the wording is intended to extend beyond militias, we live in a different world and the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) intended for the constitution to be open to interpretation (he wanted it rewritten every few decades). The 2nd amendment as it was written and interpreted for the 18th and 19th centuries, is no longer a valid interpretation for those of us living in the 21st century.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: