A 3-year-old boy was killed after a barrage of gunfire was aimed at a home in Charlotte, North Carol

Thank you for making my argument. Also for ignoring the rest of the amendment, which totally changes the meaning you put forth. Or are you a well regulated militia?

 

Most in this forum do. Of course, there is no reason for you to believe your lying eyes!

 

It sounds like what you're attempting to say is that your argument needs to be that your guns need to be suitable for hunting or self-defense to be constitutional. No wherei s such a thing claimed

 

Know what there's no reason for me to believe is you're lying fingers.

But go ahead and dig up some quotes that justify what you claimed and make honest fingers out of them

 

There are lots of ways to reduce such violence but they violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

It's too bad the kids got shot-up but the story does not give enough details as to why the shooting happened. It is written as a propaganda piece to stir up emotions for gun control.

 

These "ways" include building walls around the places where all the crime is, and then putting metal detector screening at all the entry points, no cars allowed in or out.

90% of the problem is in 1% of the area.

There are huge swaths of America that have lots of guns but do not need gun control.

 

OK, you get get hysterical or cool down now, depending on your pov. The Slave Patrol grabbed a 21-year-old guy today. The others are still on the run.

Arrest made in connection with murder of 3-year-old in Charlotte, police say
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article254150203.html
includes video of shooting

https://www.wbtv.com/2021/09/10/arrest-made-fatal-shooting-3-year-old-charlotte-child/
has mugshot of suspect

 

The Supreme Court has already spoken on that: the 2nd Amendment right is an individual right, not a state right dependent on militias. But aside from that, I’m fine with militias. In fact, patriotic militias of concerned citizens have been forming all over the country. So, I’m fine with that.

 

Yes that was the point. Leftist media's callous disregard for human life. How much reporting do they do on the daily hourly slaughter across America's ghettos? None. Because a) its POC killing POC so 'who cares right?', and b) leftists don't acknowledge that POCs even commit crimes in the first place.

 

Yup, earlier this year...

Water gun fight at park escalates into fatal shootout, Georgia police say
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...fatal-shootout-georgia-police-say/ar-BB1gRSAf

 

Damn squirt guns, BAN THEM!

 

Funny how we have all these self-described authorities on development telling us how innocuous statues of people no one even learns about anymore are doing incalculable long last damage to POC culture, but the crime glorifying violence promoting gang idolizing 'thug life' isn't.

 

Thug life equates to DNC votes, coolness and cradle to grave dependency, DNC Shangri-La

 

A right has no license. It DOES have restrictions. Those restrictions begin at the end of your nose. Or to put it a different way, my rights end where yours begin. And your rights end where mine begin. The carnage taking place has nothing to do with Rights of gun owners because no one has the right to shoot up a school, church, theatres etc etc. NO ONE. Yet your side likes to try and interfere with law abiding peoples Rights. Because you can't figure out how to solve the root causes. Which is not guns. Guns are inanimate objects. A tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. The problem lies in the people using those tools. Focus on the root causes and leave innocent peoples Rights alone.

If you don't know what the root causes are then you haven't been paying attention. Poverty. Crappy education. Mental issues. A justice system based entirely on punishment and NO rehabilitative goals. Those are ALL root causes of ALL crime. Including crime committed with the use of a gun. FIX those. And you will see ALL crime, including crimes committed with guns reduced. Do it right and it can even get rid of crime altogether. And not once will you have to focus on an inanimate object.

 

Its easily proven.

When the Democratic Party was first formed what did they support? Slavery. Based on blacks as a group being sub-human and whites being real humans better than anyone that wasn't white. After slavery was ended they supported segregation and miscegenation laws to keep the groups separated. When that ended what came next? More Identitarism. However this time its about POC, LGBTQ+ etc etc... and who do they demonize for it? White cis-gendered males. Its all about the groups with them. No matter what century, or even decade, you're talking about. Democrats are singing praises for one group, while demonizing another group.

Republicans on the other hand literally fought against slavery, ended segregation and miscegenation laws because they believe in the Individual Rights that we ALL have. And to this day STILL defend individual Rights.

 

And the Nobel Prize in medicine goes to.........

 

Do you know what the USC definition of a militia actually is when you ask this question? Probably not. So here it is. The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age

And "well regulated" meant well trained when the 1rst amendment was written. In other words the militia (those 17 and older) had guns (so they could train and practice on a regular basis). That right existed then. It exists now.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

If you'd look at actual data and facts to base your opinions off of, then you'd know there was virtually zero chance this was police. But to people like you, pushing an anti cop narrative is far more important politically than the truth.

Politics above all else...... the motto of the left.

 

Like the refusal of cops to respect asset forfeitures laws the Constitution grants?

 

Sadly, there are still people who are unable to grasp the simple reality that criminals, by definition, do not obey either existing laws or new laws.

Make all the "common sense" gun laws "for the children" that you want and criminals will still break them.

 

it you read my post, you would see that I said that based on just reading the title, but was glad that was not the case when I looked at the actual data and facts.... usually they call that a drive by shooting, not a barrage of gunfire aimed at a house, but thanks for your input and trying to make this political, and here I thought we could just agree on this

 

In order to regulate a system, you must be in control of the entire system. The problem with regulation is that it's typically an application of narrow focus that has a global impact on the entire system. I've mentioned this before, but it rarely gets much traction. Right here in this thread I pointed out that this story cannot be understood solely on the three variables we've been provided: gun, child, death. The system is far more complex then that. Removing the gun from the equation will not always influence the equation's derivative the way the regulator expects. How does it address the war that appears to be happening at the local high schools? Why is that war happening? Is that reason the same across all high schools, or is this a special case? But it's impossible to address the problem in this way because there's an infinite number of variables that contribute to the problem. So we fall back on the facile answer. People are drawn to simple solutions to complex problems, and we have no way to accurately measure how the entire system changes when we impose them. Take away the guns and what happens? No clue. Maybe the kids cope with whatever is happening at the school by committing suicide. There's no way to directly link that to taking away their guns so that's a completely different issue, right?

Let's look at one of the most heavily regulated systems for clues. The prison system is a highly regulated society. No weapons of any kind are allowed. And yet, it's one of the most violent societies a person can interact with. Restrictions are imposed to regulate behavior, and that in turn generates a change in behavior in reaction. The changes are never in line with the regulator's expectations. They exist within the blind spots of a regulator's ability to predict behavior. But the responsibility for that blindness never tracks back to the regulator that imposed the change. With all regulations there are positive and negative outcomes. When a warden removes one tool of violence from a cell block all he's doing is shifting power from the group that used that tool, to some new group that invents a new one. No one accuses the warden of wanting people to be stabbed by sharpened tooth brushes when he removes disposable razors from the commissary.

Therefor conservative view is this: The imposition of regulation limits my individual ability to react to the unforeseen changes in behavior that will occur once the regulation interacts with the system. This is immoral as it often prohibits my application of a moral response to the individual system that I interact with. Everyone's "system" is unique. We are not all bees in a hive mind that react to changes in uniform ways. It is the potential for unique solutions to problems that is our greatest asset. Regulations stifle this process.

 

And your side obviously doesn't know the federal qualifications to purchase a firearm legally.

No argument needed. Its a right

Yet your side doesn't want anyone with a gun to protect those same schools.

You are more interested in false narratives than you are the actual facts. You conflate criminal activity to gun owners who claim willingly, vociferously, and gleefully support killings just because they support their right? Then you try and falsify this with unrestricted unregulated right?

No such thing exist but your post shows your true nature, Using the deaths of the innocent to accuse law abiding citizens so you can have your way.

 

No such meaning exist which was determined by the SCOTUS. Your right to own a firearm has nothing to do with a well regulated militia.
What else ya got

 

A militia is a citizen police force that protects us from threats both foreign and domestic. "Well regulated" means regulated by the people, not by the government. The purpose is to make policing a right of the people, not of the government. Every citizen has a right to be a member of and a regulator of that police force. As such they have the right to arm themselves such that they can participate and exercise this right.