I’m flattered. Are you suggesting I become president? Respectfully, I’ll have to decline.Can I get a few words off the top of your head about Trump supporters?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’m flattered. Are you suggesting I become president? Respectfully, I’ll have to decline.Can I get a few words off the top of your head about Trump supporters?
Just as the Constitution doesn't speak about the right to clean air, it doesn't talk about civilization (or does it, for all I know). The Magna Carta and the US Constitution are arguably the two most civilizing acts from the last 1000 years. The entire purpose of the US Constitution was to create a civilization for We the People.I don't think so but I don't know that the Constitution cares about what makes us more civilized. Maybe I am missing some point there.
At this point, yes, because no gunlover is proposing anything amounting to actual effective control or reduction of guns and guncontrol opponents are once again deflecting to blaming mental illness for mass shootings and offering the red herrings of enhanced background checks and red flag laws. None of these show any promise of eliminating or even reducing mass shootings, because virtually none of the mass shooters we know about have truly acted crazy or irrational beforehand.Not enough for you, I can guarantee that. You won't be satisfied until we get a complete gun ban.
I wonder if this whole debate serves Republicans more than Democrats. We need gun reform but the topic should maybe be domestic terrorism. Moscow Mitch will happily defend gun rights to his dying day but he won't like be accused of supporting domestic terrorism.At this point, yes, because no gunlover is proposing anything amounting to actual effective control or reduction of guns and guncontrol opponents are once again deflecting to blaming mental illness for mass shootings and offering the red herrings of enhanced background checks and red flag laws. None of these show any promise of eliminating or even reducing mass shootings, because virtually none of the mass shooters we know about have truly acted crazy or irrational beforehand.
The gunlover lobby has made clear that they will oppose anything proposed by people they call Democrats, leftists or socialists. So, unfortunately, the only proposals likely to go anywhere are those weak measures proposed by the gunlovers.
Along with real background checks for everyone, and red flag laws to keep those with mental health issues including making threats of murder? Sure. Not one law fixes things.Fine. Ban any magazine over 15. Would you be satisfied?
Hmmmm, let's see: stopping law-abiding people from having fun on a gun range vs. stopping law-abiding people from getting shot in a public place. Yes, a small price to pay.Along with real background checks for everyone, and red flag laws to keep those with mental health issues including making threats of murder? Sure. Not one law fixes things.
I'd prefer, though, to work on a good definition of an assault weapon and ban them, without the loopholes of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Stopping law-abiding people from having fun on a gun range seems a small price to pay, since these weapons have no other legit non-battlefield use. They should be categorized with hand grenades and missile launchers, as mass people-killers.
You should quit while you're behind. You're embarrassing yourself.Ahhh, I see. So that’s not WRITTEN in the opinion, that’s YOUR INTEPRETATION of what they were TRYING TO CONVEY. Got it.
Right off the bat, you lose any credibility whatsoever, not that you had any to begin with. Remember, you’re the one claiming I’m spouting off on subjects which I know nothing of, and here you are speaking for the court itself, because their opinion wasn’t to your liking.
If my problem is knowing to little, then your problem is an unbelievably severe case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
But let’s forget about all that, for now. Let us go back to your ridiculous claim that, in Plesser vs Illinois, the court was not referring to the second amendment, but rather the natural law that preceded it.
The 2nd amendment, indeed the entire bill or rights, attempted to codify what had always been taken for granted to be self evident. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It didn’t GRANT any powers to anyone. It simply put some of what they considered to be the most important in writing.
Therefore, the Supreme Court could not have been referring to the natural law that preceeded the second, because the second was never intended to be a law. It only put that natural law into writing.
That the Bill of Rights wasn’t exhaustive and the 9th was added later has no bearing on what we’re discussing here.
Well, by all means, show me where I’m wrong, Goat.You should quit while you're behind. You're embarrassing yourself.
Those are as specific as I can make them, without seeing what the exact law would be.Translation: you may or may not have a specific proposal that can be evaluated.
Along with real background checks for everyone, and red flag laws to keep those with mental health issues including making threats of murder? Sure. Not one law fixes things.
I'd prefer, though, to work on a good definition of an assault weapon and ban them, without the loopholes of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Stopping law-abiding people from having fun on a gun range seems a small price to pay, since these weapons have no other legit non-battlefield use. They should be categorized with hand grenades and missile launchers, as mass people-killers.
Disagree with pretty much all of this. Democrats, like Stuffshot, have made it clear they want to eliminate all guns. Given that’s their stance, I won’t compromise. I’m not giving up my M4. In fact, I just purchases a new red dot (offset) for my “assault rifle”.Along with real background checks for everyone, and red flag laws to keep those with mental health issues including making threats of murder? Sure. Not one law fixes things.
I'd prefer, though, to work on a good definition of an assault weapon and ban them, without the loopholes of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Stopping law-abiding people from having fun on a gun range seems a small price to pay, since these weapons have no other legit non-battlefield use. They should be categorized with hand grenades and missile launchers, as mass people-killers.
Nope. Keep pumping a gun ban and the like. I’m positive it’ll help in 2020.Hmmmm, let's see: stopping law-abiding people from having fun on a gun range vs. stopping law-abiding people from getting shot in a public place. Yes, a small price to pay.
I think it may be a trap to offer to define an "assault weapon" because it would take too long. -- there seem to be several varieties, each with variants. The gun lobby seeks to slow walk any and all gun reform, and seeking to reach agreement on such a definition would either fail or take too long.
No, you don't get it. In trying again to get through to you, I'll start not from the beginning but from the end of the story -- with McDonald v. Chicago (2010), where for the first time the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applied to the states. Justice Alito's plurality opinion helpfully lays out the history you can't seem to grasp:Ahhh, I see. So that’s not WRITTEN in the opinion, that’s YOUR INTEPRETATION of what they were TRYING TO CONVEY. Got it.
Right off the bat, you lose any credibility whatsoever, not that you had any to begin with. Remember, you’re the one claiming I’m spouting off on subjects which I know nothing of, and here you are speaking for the court itself, because their opinion wasn’t to your liking.
If my problem is knowing to little, then your problem is an unbelievably severe case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
But let’s forget about all that, for now. Let us go back to your ridiculous claim that, in Plesser vs Illinois, the court was not referring to the second amendment, but rather the natural law that preceded it.
The 2nd amendment, indeed the entire bill or rights, attempted to codify what had always been taken for granted to be self evident. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It didn’t GRANT any powers to anyone. It simply put some of what they considered to be the most important in writing.
Therefore, the Supreme Court could not have been referring to the natural law that preceeded the second, because the second was never intended to be a law. It only put that natural law into writing.
That the Bill of Rights wasn’t exhaustive and the 9th was added later has no bearing on what we’re discussing here.
Does it really piss you off that you can't walk into a store and buy hand grenades? They were banned a long time ago, and the only logical reason to ban them was as a ruse to get to a complete ban of firearms, right?Also, generally speaking, I would probably oppose anything that makes it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain weapons.
That’s the only logically consistent position one can take, unless the ultimate goal is the complete ban of firearms.
You're too kind. Without making any claims about the quality of my classes, I enjoyed the experience very much. The students were great, and when I talked, they took notes. I can't imagine anyone doubting I'd enjoy that.You seem to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the US Constitution (which I already knew of course). I'm embarrassed I don't take more time to get my knowledge up to snuff and I thank you for sharing.
I also apologize for my fellow Americans who pose as your foils. Then again, that's always been an effective literary technique and I admire your talent in weaving it skillfully into the discussion.
Aside: I actually have your foils on Ignore but am able to thoroughly follow your train of thought. Kudos for that too. I'll wager both your classes were superlative.
Here’s a link to the text of Presser vs Illinois. Please direct me to the part that you are referring. Because it’s certainly not in the summary.
Your "not in the summary" stuff is killing me. I am literally laughing out loud.Which is made quite clear in the summary.
Rock has repeatedly explained to you in detail why you are wrong, including with specific references to the case you are incorrectly interpreting.Well, by all means, show me where I’m wrong, Goat.
He’s making an argument that isn’t supported by the text of what we are discussing and defending it only by saying “well, it’s obvious.” One would think a former constitutional law professor from Butler university could do better than that.
And you, well, the next meaningful contribution you make to any of these 2A threads will be the first, as far as I can tell.
You’ve gotten pretty good at taking potshots and running away, though.
Before I read this:People are actually laughing at you.
I am literally laughing out loud.
Easy answer. Crazy people who go on mass shootings typically pick places where guns aren’t allowed aka gun free zones.So in Texas on September 1, places of worship will not be able to bar guns. What happened to freedom of religion? If one belongs to a pacifist religion that takes beating swords into plowshares literally, they still must allow armed people inside.
Gun ownership has become its own religion.
Easy answer. Crazy people who go on mass shootings typically pick places where guns aren’t allowed aka gun free zones.
No. They’re not always gun free zones. I probably shouldn’t have said “typically” and something more along the lines of often.Was the Wal-mart, in El Paso, TEXAS, a gun-free zone?
Easy answer. Crazy people who go on mass shootings typically pick places where guns aren’t allowed aka gun free zones.
Your response is ridiculous. Being able to carry in church is not forcing anyone to do anything. People aren’t going to church with their AR’s waiting to do battle. You know that, too.So for that you can force someone to act against their religion? For example, Quakers are pacifists. You suggest your right to go the their church to do armed battle for them supersedes their right to not have you their to do battle for them?
Wrong, you are forcing them to let your gun into their church. Should you be allowed to carry a gun into my house even if I don't want you to have one?Your response is ridiculous. Being able to carry in church is not forcing anyone to do anything. You know that, too.
It’s not against the law, so yes.Wrong, you are forcing them to let your gun into their church. Should you be allowed to carry a gun into my house even if I don't want you to have one?
I'd support an argument for a natural law right to safety and security. Gun ownership may be argued to support that natural law, but it's silly to argue it is a natural right in itself because there are many other ways to achieve safety and security.
In fact, a serious argument can be made that 2nd amendment interpretations for unregulated gun ownership are seriously threatening my and my family's safety and security by giving rise to a dangerously well-armed anti-government movement.
Oh you would? LOL. Give me a break....
Most likely you wouldn't know they're carrying. I've had my concealed carry in my friends homes and they've had no clue. It's not against the law, either.
Yup. I carry at all times, excluding where I'm not allowed by law. I want to make sure I can protect my family if ever necessary. Do you think if ever I find myself and family in danger, I can ask the bad guy to just leave us alone and he'll listen? Maybe I can ask him if I can give him a hug he'll go away peacefully. Lol.She's a "snowflake" but you're so scared of everyday life that you need to carry a gun with you at all times, including at your friends' homes without their knowledge?
Got it! You're delightful.
Yup. I carry at all times, excluding where I'm not allowed by law. I want to make sure I can protect my family if ever necessary. Do you think if ever I find myself and family in danger, I can ask the bad guy to just leave us alone and he'll listen? Maybe I can ask him if I can give him a hug he'll go away peacefully. Lol.
George ZImmerman type at best.I’d say chances are pretty good I wouldn’t let him in my house, gun or no gun, but..... Yep he’s Quixote the joy. Perhaps is still a frat boy, but that is actually an insult to all the current ones I know who are awesome.
Every statistic in the world shows you are much more likely to be a victim if you own a gun than if you don’t. You shoot yourself , you get overpowered, you shoot a member of your family.Lol. Who's frightened? I'm simply carrying in the unlikely event I encounter an event like that. I also live in a major city. Crime happens. But, I wouldn't expect an idiot liberal to acknowledge crime even happens.
Again, maybe we just tell bad guys to stop it. They always follow the law anyway...
Crime does happen, and there is also a chance you will end up shooting yourself with your gun
Lol. Who's frightened? I'm simply carrying in the unlikely event I encounter an event like that. I also live in a major city. Crime happens. But, I wouldn't expect an idiot liberal to acknowledge crime even happens.