If Machine Guns are illegal

You are the one with a plan that NO ONE ON EARTH IS WILLING TO CONSIDER. That is the definition of extremist

 

Thicken ye hide. This is a place where people who disagree can communicate, quite unlike many places on the internet. Some people who come here do so with the sole intention of antagonizing.

 

Well, the "typical American" is wrong, and the fact that the "typical American" doesn't "care about what the Founding Fathers thought" is one of the biggest problems this country has.

The Founders themselves said that in any question of interpreting the Constitution is to go back and look at their stated intent. Too many people fail to do that today. If the people agree that the Constitution is not up to the task of enabling us to deal with a given situation, due to changing times or changing societal values, they are welcome to pursue the necessary Constitutional amendments to address those problems.

We're not a democracy and were never intended to be. The Constitution is the law and any law that violates the Constitution is not a legitimate law. When the government brazenly acts outside the Constitution, in defiance of their oaths to the Constitution, and the people do nothing in response, then the Constitution becomes meaningless.

No, they would have acted against any assault against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You don't even know what form of government we were designed to be. I'm not impressed.

 

And SCOTUS has abdicated its credibility and legitimacy in doing so. They have chosen to ignore the Constitution in favor of becoming a rubber stamp on governmental overreach.

 

It is certainly the opinion of many other legal scholars that you are incorrect on this issue. Scalia was one of them

 

Such does not answer the question that was presented to yourself. It does not even attempt to answer the question that was presented. Try again, and actually answer the question this time around. Why could Nikolas Cruz not be arrested under the currently existing laws of the united states, even when he was committing acts of domestic violence, and threatening others with a firearm?

 

Then let us propose another approach for consideration.

Anyone who is prescribed SSRI medications for the purpose of regulating and controlling their behavior, is automatically reclassified as too dangerous to be allowed free in society, and must be confined with an adequate mental health facility for an indefinite period of time, until such time that no less than three licensed and certified mental health professionals are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they are no longer a threat to themselves or others, and that the prescribed medication is demonstrating nothing in the way of side effects related to homicide or suicide, and will accept the consequences of being wrong in their evaluation.

 

That's a good way to make sure these people don't get a gun.
As such, I am sure the anti-gun left will oppose the idea.

 

YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MIND. WE BOTH KNOW WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS WHEN THEY REFUSE TO CEASE AND KNOWN MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FACT AND YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP. IT IS ANNOYING, HARASSING, AND INSULTING.

THE FACTS ARE: PEOPLE ARE, YES ARE, NOT ONLY CONSIDERING SOME OF MY IDEAS, BUT IMPLEMENTING THEM. YOU ARE DELIBERATELY NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Maybe if we put the facts in bold, this back and forth nonsense can be given a rest. The facts are that a State Senator wants to meet with me in the coming weeks to consider many of my ideas. For you to post otherwise is insulting; it is unethical; it ends any possibility of ever having any meaningful discourse with you. IF you have any sense of decency and any ethical standards, I'm going to ask you publicly not to address me again.

Yeah, we've heard all that B.S. and heaven forbid that someone step on your Rights while you attempt to screw others out of theirs. Having the Right to do something does not make it right to do it. You will be judged now by your ethical standards AND your sense of decency.

IF you reply to this post, you will have done a disservice to yourself and to those who lobby for your silly ass issue. Here is the real reason that the people must support the Second Amendment. The left will lord over you, harass you, and turn America into a tyrannical cesspool with wannabe dictators and this exchange will say more than I can in a thousand posts. The left absolutely cannot stand for someone to have an opinion contrary to theirs... and they will use every tool at their disposal to show you what they really are. When this one hits the reply key, you will know, beyond the shadow of a doubt why you should fight back.

Please go away and leave me alone. If you cannot be honest, why ride my ass? I'm not your mule. GOODBYE SIR. / MADAM

 

And harassing people is contrary to the rules. Of course not all are held to the same standard. But, when people cannot tell the truth and you cannot call them what they are, there isn't much room for discussion.

There is an upside. In screwing around with the Bill of Rights, the day is rapidly coming where there will no longer be any pretense of any Right to Privacy. Then all this Internet anonymity crap disappears and the trolls, shills, and paid informants will be exposed for the world to see.

When the left is finished gutting the Bill of Rights, they will find out what it's like not to have something they relied on.

 

The worst shooting in American history was Virginia tech when a 20 year old Asian kid took a 9mm pistol and a 22 pistol, each with mags no bigger than 12 rounds and killed a ton of people. Magazine size is irrelevant. Killers will kill. Just look at France where those psychopaths killed all those concert goers with fully automatic weapons despite that francs has a virtual ban on firearms.

 

It's not a matter of calling someone a felon, but the fact of them being one.

You're the guy who talked about locking up a potential perp instead of taking away his guns. A senior who shouldn't be driving is a potential perp, too.

 

You can type in bold. You can capitalize all your letters. You can say I have OCD and throw personal insult after personal insult at me if you like. I have tried to encourage you to engage is mature and responsible debate but you are unwilling so you. may continue your hysterics if you like.

What you can't do is stop me from engaging this forum in polite and respectful debate. Really....just relax....this is supposed to be fun.

 

Again you are talking about millions of americans. That would cost billions of dollars if not trillions of dollars to achieve.

 

He could have been. He wasn't. But gun control could have prevented this mass shooting

 

No it wouldn't have. Though enforcing the Baker act or any of the sundry criminal code violations Cruz committed with knowledge of the police would've had some effect those are not gun control laws.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/03/p...ty-rate-one-year-entire-8-years-barack-obama/

^ Doesn't help France either.

 

I think a bigger problem is the gap between rich and poor.

What would they have done about the electromagnetic spectrum? Rent it? Sold rights to it? Let chaos reign?

We're a democratic republic. So, who says what is an isn't a legitimate law? What if laws conflict, as they often do? What if a state passes one law, the feds another? The courts are the deciders.

The Declaration of Independence detailed a long list of grievances, some had been going on for a long time. The idea our FFs would have had a hair-trigger doesn't square with how they acted.

You're quite aggressive for someone who couldn't pass a high school government class.

 

The courts are deciders but are themselves bound by the constitution and their decisions must be based in that. They cannot simply claim red means blue because public policy.

They wouldn't have acted over gun rights? Try this chief: Google "the shot heard 'round the world".

Okie doke?

 

The solution within our system is to elect representatives that will either appoint Justices who see the world as you do or amend the Constitution.

Of course, you can step outside the system, challenge it or try to get rid of it, but then you're asking for trouble.

 

I'm wondering if you know enough American history to discuss the FFs intelligently.

 

And if it potentially prevents even a single mass shooting from occurring, will it not be considered a worthwhile investment? Or do the lives of children actually have a monetary value?

 

What would you have me amend it to? It ALREADY SAYS in plain english exactly what the right is: [Operative clause] The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. You're the one that needs an amendment to turn it into a privilege.

 

So were you unaware of the whole lexington and concord thing? Maybe we can all chip in to get you a US history textbook or something.

 

And why was he not?

Except for the fact that it could not, as Nikolas Cruz could have just as easily acquired the firearm through the performance of a straw purchase.

 

My god I wish we had the gun death rate that France has