Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, May 25, 2022.
About a $500 tax on each bullet, and outlaw home bullet making kits?
And where would you plan to usurp the so-called authority to do such a thing?
So in you're Utopia only the rich could afford adequate means of self-defense and you would deny those below the poverty line that same self-defense
OK. There is a process to do that legitimately built in to the constitution. Why isn't anyone trying to start that process?
So give the black market a monopoly on bullet manufacturing for all but the super rich... What do you think of the war on drugs? Has it been successful and a benefit to society?
Yet that wasn't what the 2nd amendment was written for.
Then maybe its time you don't support creating these madmen
No, I find it funny what you think a fact is. lol
The fact that this is what you think the 2nd was written for really says it all
If it was survival of the fittest, I doubt there would be any liberals around to complain about it.
THe fact that you would have to claim this speech had no sign of cognitive decline speaks for itself
Says the poster that doesn't even know why the 2nd was required
They didn't have an officer on location. Which made them easy targets.
Sine there wasn't a gun loving guard on duty, another deranged gun loving liberal trans was able to attack the school
Which is why the majority of these school shootings happen in liberal cities
I take it you don't do very well if you have any competition. Thats what happens when they gave you a trophy every time you played a sport. Now you think you are owed something.
Hate to break it to you, thats just an entitled attitude. Its a miserable existence.
Spoken like a true entitled child of your generation.
Sorry, again, nobody owes you anything for simply turning oxygen into carbon dioxide. Mommy and Daddy were wrong.
But your liberal gun free zones do? Thats the problem with liberals. Learning deficiencies run ramped in that community.
Thats how liberals deal with their failures. Its always societies fault they can't be successful
Another cowardly cry of the liberal base. They can't make it in the real world so now its the classical economics based NAIRU neoliberal economy fault.
They don't compare the cost of armed guards to the lives of children. Only liberal minds do that
The fact that you couldn't grasp what I posted and came up with this is proof thise thread is just way over your head
It exposes the week minded liberal entitled children of the left who can't deal with the reality of the real world.
But there are places designed for such sheep. North Korea would be the perfect place. You can have equal jobs, for equal pay, in a gun free environment and
the government will replace that mommy and daddy loss for you. Not sure why you wouldn't just go to a place where the government is
exactly what you want.
Some have said that it's "easy" to build your own "assault weapon" at home. Well... it's "easy" if you buy a kit. Clearly those kits will need to be outlawed. I did a bit of basic research about how "easy" it would be to build your own assault rifle without a kit.
If the lives of children was the most important, we’d ban swimming, pools or beaches first and then worry about guns. Is it the lives you care about about or just what you want to ban that doesn’t impact you? Banning children near any open body of water is easier and would save far more lives. Agreed?
Yeah... because a nut might go into a school and force kids to the beach and drown them.
No! The most important thing is to reduce the number of mass shootings and the number of dead in those we can't stop. Especially those that kill children.
BTW, if you don't see me responding to idiotic comments like this, it's because I already know beforehand which posters are going to make them, and I simply don't waste my time even reading them.
So you are aware of how many die from shooting vs drowning? Yes? You want to save the MOST lives? Or you only concerned with certain lives? What do you think the actual statistical odds of getting shot in school are? Serious mathematical problem. You can probably spend a few minutes doing the simple Math, but it’s incredibly small. We can agree with the result of these numbers right? It’s tiny, correct?
And you are also aware that the vast majority of kids under 19 being shot are not actually in schools. It’s due to mostly gang violence and it’s isolated to inner cities. We can agree on this math, correct?
It's illegal to own them. But per the explicit words of the 2A, they shall not be infringed.
That's what I agree to.
You want nuke ownership to be legal? Or do you want infringements on the 2A?
Post the stats to back up your claim. Can't agree with something that has no data to review.
But I am not aware of a big issue with kids being murdered at beaches or swimming pools.
The black market wouldn't be cheap, either. Your average school shooter is not rich.
The war on drugs is a failure, the whole approach is wrong.
Drugs should be legalized, the hard stuff distributed by the government to quarantined, conduct controlled, health inspected, addicts who surrender to the program in order to get their drugs. Think of it has a hospice optional.
If the addicts want to live, they will progress in the rehab at the facility, or they can opt to take the drugs as they march slowly to their demise but they
would required to attend meetings.
It would take addicts off the streets, and undermine the cartels.
I agree. But I dont understand why you think a new war on guns using the same laws and tactics as the war on drugs will be successful and is the right approach...?
Both guns and drugs can be made by criminals.
Both guns and drugs are easy to smuggle.
Both guns and drugs are in enough demand to be profitable to supply.
Both gun users and drug users are unlikely to just give it up because of a new law.
Thats just off the top of my head, the similarities likely continue.
Why do you think we can succeed in doing with guns what we've utterly failed (wasted endless money and lives and corrupted society) to do with drugs? And alcohol 100 years ago for that matter.
How is this not just doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?
So you want legal nukes? I think you're full of crap.
It's not what I want. It's what the constitution says.
Personally, I don't believe any rights are absolute. All rights are human made and enforced.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
you didn't answer, should we own nukes or should we go against the 2A?
Can you answer without an ad hom?
They aren't the same, that's why.
School shooters are different thab most criminals. Most criminals are motivate by greed. School shooters are motivated by demons, frustrations, rants against society, maybe they are incels, or whatever. https://homelandsecurity.iowa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FBI_School_Shooter_Guide.pdf
The powerful are always going to get around the laws, but if we can stop some of the shooting, the school shooters, so it's a worthy goal,
No one is suggesting the problem can't be solved. Just as crime can never be stopped, but if we can do something to put a dent in it, we should,
How are guns different from drugs in the context of prohibition (or restrictive legislation that attempts to prohibit)?
School shooters are clearly a mental health problem. Why direct all the energy toward more gun control instead of better mental health systems?
Thats the same logic behind the failed yet ongoing war on drugs.
Looky here I know you're trying to be clever with a gotcha question....
What you're trying to argue is that since we cannot own nuclear weapons that the second amendment can obviously be limited. You made the argument that we could own nuclear weapons... But of course you're just trying to make the circular argument that it can be limited.
And I made no ad home you did not really mean what you said. So let me ask you this what are the limitations and who gets to decide them the fuderal kangaroos in the black robes?
Oh well that's great all you have to do is seat enough far left justices to say that you can only have a single shot musket or whatever your flavor of the day is.
The worst thing this country ever did was to allow Federal justices to interpret the Constitution.... An effectively make law based on their ruling.
There is nothing about the Constitution that is too terribly difficult to understand. It's pretty cut and dry
Restricting the ownership of nuclear weapons is technically unconstitutional. It would be simple thing to amend the constitution to read 'Private ownership of nuclear weapons is unlawful and punishable by __(whatever)___.' It would easily pass the amendment process having overwhelming majority support everywhere, and that's what we should've done immediately in 1945. Unfortunately even then we were already conditioned to accept that the government could just regulate away our rights by bureaucratic fiat instead of our constitutionally prescribed democratic processes. Thus our present situation with guns, weed, abortion...
As of May 1, 2020 the Government of Canada has prohibited over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and certain components of some newly prohibited firearms (the upper receivers of M16, AR-10, AR-15, and M4 patterns of firearms). New maximum thresholds for muzzle energy (greater than 10,000 Joules) and bore diameter (20 mm bore or greater) are also in place. Any firearm that exceeds them is now prohibited.
From the sounds of it some of you will never want to come to be citizens Canada as a result of those laws. What can I say, Come visit as tourists tough. You just can't bring your guns. You will be ok. We have much better beer and Tim Horton's and some of us still are monarchists you know so you can keep that idiot Harry with you.
LOL, asking if you agree with the 2A is a gotcha question. Oh my.
I am not trying to argue that, that is a fact. It's an infringement of the 2A. Flat out.
It can be limited. In fact it is limited.
The 2A is cut and dry.
So why is it extremely difficult for you to say making nuke ownership illegal is against the 2A?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The 2nd was written for individuals' self defense in frontier communities subject to attack by natives - or the British(!) - without police or military protection. Why else would 'the right of individuals to bear arms' even be considered a "right"? Try learning some self-defense skills not requiring guns.
That's why the US is condemned by the whole sane world today, for its regular mass slaughter slaughter of innocents. in the name of "self defense".
Deluded, paranoid "rights" ideologues like yourself are incapable of rational thought, hence 'fact' is unknowable to you.
so tell us what the 2nd is for......
Vicious 'survival of the fittest' Conservatives can't wipe out the entire non-vicious population.
It revealed a person with sufficient cognitive ability to hold the office. Ideology is infinitely more significant; Trump's unilateral withdrawals from international agreements brought the US into disrepute around the world, the same as the 2nd is doing now.
Still waiting for you to have the gumption to tell us why the 2nd was required...and why it is STILL required. Go on, have go....
Here's your chance to tell us all you are prepared to pay the higher taxes to have a trained guard at EVERY location....
The most important competition is with oneself, then competition in sports and skills contests with others. But enforced competition for survival, in a survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog dysfunctional economic system is a result of a sheer mindless 'law of the jungle' ideology.
Everyone has a right (and responsibility) to participate in the economy, with the minimum wage set above poverty level.
Your dysfunctional neoliberal NAIRU economic orthodoxy guarantees not all can participate, by insanely relating inflation to unemployment. (ie "I" with "U" in NAIRU).
Of course not, but you of course won't pay the necessary taxes to pay for trained guards at every school.
A broken 'dog eat dog' system in which half the population are living pay check to pay check, with entrenched poverty and disadvantage, in the wealthiest nation on the planet - IS "society's" fault, or rather, blind, comfortable Conservative survival of the fittest ideologues like yourself who acquiesce in the current dysfunctional NAIRU rules and dogmas.
"You are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones, your schools and hospitals are broken, your young men are in prison".....spoken by you know who, but content to blame the victims of a dysfunctional economic dog-eat-dog system, rather than change the dysfunational system.
Funny, from a paranoid right to bear arms against his neighbors ideologue; paranoia born out of a dysfunctional NAIRU neoliberal system which pits citizen against citizens in a dog-eat-dog competition for survival.
So you are happy to pay for trained armed guards at every school? Now's you chance to tell us.
No, your blind gun-lover's ideology results in twisted logic.
You said people kill using not only guns but also cars, knives and other objects...conclusion, (in your twisted logic) people should have access to guns also, when they wish to kill.
Addressed above. FYI:
Ellen Brown: A Monetary Reset Where the Rich Don’t Own Everything – scheerpost.com
Ellen Brown: A Monetary Reset Where the Rich Don’t Own Everything
May 4, 2022
"We have a serious debt problem, but solutions such as the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” are not the future we want. It’s time to think outside the box for some new solutions".
Even the WEF's elite gathered at Davos admit there is a problem, but they of course want to turn us all into serfs.
But comfortable blind Conservatives don't even admit there is a problem.....
I didn't know you were such a stickler for the strict interpretation.....
But of course we both know you are not.
Your title admits that these are unconstitutional pretextual policies intended to violated 2A.
The Court has already heard arguments on licensing gun ownership and will release their decision shortly. One of the concerns a majority of the Justices mentioned was the use of "licensing" as a pretext to violate 2A.
I really appreciate you exposing your own lack of education in that one post. Like I said (and you just proved) that isn't what the founders made the 2nd amendment for.
It was provided to fight against a tyrannical government. Its actually in the constitution (that you have no clue about) The forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and listed the reasons why and grievances against the King of England’s authoritarian rule. Without weapons, we would have had no recourse but to be subjected to England’s rule.
And you have not clue that not one mass shooting was by an NRA member. Gun violence in America is laid at the feet of Democrats, who control large metropolitan areas, and refuse to provide safety or rights in cities that have the strictest gun control allowed. Which is why your mass shootings happen in these areas predominantly.
If its dog eat dog, tell us again how this imaginary non viscous population will defend itself. lol
I just did. lol You're welcome
Another uninformed post by you. Our schools have a single deputy sheriff as a resource officer.
Seems we have plenty of money and no school shootings.
But I can imagine how something so simple would not be thought of by the left.
Is this the same law of the jungle where these vicious predator's can't overcome the non vicious week lefties? lol
Everything else you posted was just leftist entitled ideology not worth the time to dispute.
Because you can't teach most lefties anything. They are the only species that will vote for laws that cause them to abandon their own state, then go to another state and vote for the same laws again.
Separate names with a comma.