Texas shooter struggled with mental health, family dysfunction, was fascinated with guns

kinda sounds like a terrorist training camp would be constitutional.... until they broke the law

 

I think there should be a basic free ID, most drive, so that is good enough

 

The court can't interpret the Constitution.

We're black codes constitutional? It's a simple question.

No, you are.

 

That's literally their assigned role, and they've been doing it since the foundation of our constitution

They were, until we passed an amendment making it unconstitutional. Same thing is true for slavery

 

Uhh yeah.. so as you just acknowledged here, owning a fully automatic weapon manufactured before the year 1986 requires a license, under federal law. There are even more restrictions and licenses on fully automatic weapons under state laws

So to answer your question, no not all weapons are permitted under the 2nd amendment. That's not my personal opinion, that is the law as it stands today

 

Should trans people lose their right that can’t be infringed upon?

 

What law do you think we need that would prevent the mentally ill from getting guns? And be specific, lest we end up just putting everyone who 'wears makeup' or 'loses wieght' onto terrorist watch lists...

 

Well, the founders would certainly agree that it's not well regulated right now. I doubt they fought the revolution against Britain to create a country where their fellow man can kill each other on access. With the touch of a button, ending a human life. I've advocated for Singapore's laws, training people to be capable of owning a firearm before they actually have one and having gun and mental safety.

I also advocate for regulations to continue to limit and reduce the power of the black market, the true enemy of America.

 

Trump wears lots of makeup, is he trans?

 

No where in Article 3 does it say that. Feel free to show me.

No, they weren't.

 

Not too fast.

The first step is to recognize that gun proliferation kills hundreds of innocent Americans every year.

Do you accept this fact?

 

You know what? Go hump a tree or something.

Nearly half of adult Americans either own a gun, or live in a household with someone who does. Most of the time that would be spouses, so who the technical owner is isn't relevant. That means you just insulted, rather delusionally and extremely inappropriately, roughly 149,999,995 people because the other 5 went coo-coo for coco-coco puffs and went on a shooting spree.

For the love of your deity of choice, open your eyes, read a book, and learn something. Long guns (of all types) are used in like 5% of all homicides, and AR-15s (which is actually a copyrighted model number, so even if it looks like one, it ain't one) are an unknown subset of that 5%. As long guns go, they're not even all that powerful, as the .223 round was designed to wound, not kill. Of course when we're talking about kids of that age, a strong air rifle might even get the job done.

Stop being so skeered of a weapon because of how it looks.

Not only is that an outright lie, I can't even fathom how we could redesign background checks to weed out someone like this guy. If he had a juvi record (and as far as I've heard so far, he didn't), it would be sealed and wouldn't show up on a bgc. As for being a candidate for the looney bin, I haven't really heard that he showed signs of that, either, though some others, like the guy I won't name that shot up the S. Florida school did.

Not according to any reasonable definition of the phrase. Real mass shootings make the news, and I damn sure haven't seen that many on my local news channel.

Yes. And one any real American who understands the foundations of this country actually was would be willing to take.

All that said, trying to deal with this issue is going to require a more holistic approach. Limited access to the campus, a complete lockdown on all doors except maybe the front office, as long as it's staffed, and then the roads from that admin section to the rest of the school should be locked, armed, trained police on site all day, every day, allowing properly trained teachers to carry, allowing vets and ex-LEOs to volunteer as onsite security, and a whole shitload of things I'm not even thinking of right now.

We will never completely eliminate these crimes, be the targets schools, malls, churches, or whatever, because we're human and no matter how well we plan, there's always something we didn't think of, or didn't do, or did wrong, and of course there will always be a small number of people who want to commit these crimes. But it's going to take more than just banning some rifles because some people are scared of how they look. That won't accomplish squat.

 

Section 2

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects"

See also

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx#:~:text=When the Supreme Court rules,legislative action can be taken.


"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution"

uhh yeah.. they were actually, see the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

 

Unless a medical professional had reason to believe he posed an imminent risk of harm to himself or others, federal law prohibits them from disclosing anything about their patients. They can't even confirm or deny that any specific person even IS a patient or not.

 

Is this a serious question?

 

Beats meaningless words on a piece of paper in the state or national capital and that's your solution.

 

The designer of this ammunition has failed.

Let's turn schools into bunkers.

But don't talk about proliferation of guns.

After horrific killings, some countries have managed to virtually eliminate mass shootings.

Here, Republicans are doing everything possible to make mass killers the best-armed in the world.

 

What's the difference?

 

You should check out https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Last month the religion of peace murdered 1154 people. So far this year they’ve killed 3883 people in 37 countries. Last year they killed 11,208 with 9591 injuries.

We might have crazy people, but the people who frequently occupy the peak of the pyramid of victimhood have more. And no matter how many people they kill the left will never criticize them, they only criticize America and Americans.

 

According to the left, yes.

 

One is a weapon designed to prevent someone else from harming you, the other is designed for the purpose of harming a multiplicity of people. Assault rifles and high capacity magazines aren't made for self defense, they are made for the designed purpose of shooting many targets in a short period of time

Should a license be required to own such a weapon similarly to how a license is required to drive a vehicle designed for the purpose of getting you from point A to point B? yeah probably. We could also make 21 be the minimum age to buy such a weapon

 

I don't see "interpret" anywhere in Article 3.

 

Literally right there on the Supreme Court's official website

 

It IS.

Geese, it's just amazing the type of mentality that exists in some parts of the Left.

 

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Supreme Court's website.