Watch Uvalde school shooting video obtained by Statesman showing police response

The Supreme Court says he is not. And has reiterated that on numerous occasions. What you're suggesting is that some anonymous dude (or dudette, if that is the case) on the internet is correct, and Supreme Court Justices are wrong.

Whose opinion do you think actually matters?

I know you hate guns, you hate the 2A, you really hate Heller, and I imagine you despise Bruen even more, and probably had a panic attack when the ruling came down. But you're going to have to deal with the fact that your dreams are not going to come true, at least not in your lifetime. Centuries from now, who knows. But we won't be here then, at least not as our current selves. Who knows, you may actually reincarnate as a person who goes on to become a Supreme Court Justice, and you can take that argument up with your peers then. But you'll still probably lose. If it makes you feel better, if all that comes to pass, you can write a scathing dissent.

I hope I won't be here then, as I would really like to not be a human in my next life, and instead incarnate as another far more advanced and intelligent species. Being my first time, I might be the dumbest alien in any room I walk into, but even that would be better than this. And as I live and die over and over, I'll learn and mature and eventually won't be the dumbest alien in the room.

 

If we're doing the fairy dust thing, let's start with making it as difficult as possible for criminals to keep their guns shall we??? Do you have an issue with cops rounding up criminals and taking their guns?

 

And therein lies the biggest problem with your position. Guns exist.

There are over 400 MILLION of them out there in the hands of civilians. Some States keep track of who has what, but most don't, so for the most part who has what is unknown. They're not going away. And they're durable, just storing them properly will leave them in proper working order for decades if not centuries. So, even if the Constitution were altered in such a way that made taking them away from civilians legal, there will be massive noncompliance. I mean you just wouldn't believe how many people lost their guns in a terrible boating accident. And while otherwise nice, friendly, law-abiding citizens wouldn't comply, you can bet your ass and everything you own, have owned, or ever will own that actual criminals won't either.

So, you will never rid society of them, even were it legal to do so.

Which it's not.

Plus, they are simple mechanical devices that are easy to make. The guy who shot the former Japanese PM a few weeks ago did so with a homemade shotgun. From what I've heard about it was quite primitive compared to what we have, but it got the job done, and it remains a fact that making a non-primitive one is easy and getting easier.

You would literally have to uninvent them, erase all knowledge of them from those who currently know about them, and somehow prevent a future someone from inventing them again. All of which is of course preposterous. None of it can be done.

What you are hoping for is the equivalent of attempting to defy gravity... It simply cannot be done, no matter how much that distresses you. When all is said and done, that is the baseline problem with your desired outcome on this issue... It cannot be done, under any circumstances. You can change the laws all you want, you can order people to show up at the "hand them in" centers all day long, you can scream into the sky until you turn blue, as another poster so eloquently put it... But it's not going to help you accomplish what you so badly want done.

Sorry. But no, not sorry. I don't want to find myself in a life-threatening confrontation with nothing but my dick in my hand to protect myself with. If it happens anyway, I'd like at least a hypothetical chance to defend myself.

 

The Constitution says he is.

 

Huh? Not sure I understand your question. Why would I have an issue? Why would ANYBODY have an issue with that?

 

More guns than people, in this country. And this is why we have so many shootings. So the solution is obvious.

 

My point for an example was not rhetorical and comes from the same ****ing state. https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-texas-police-kill-boy-20171222-story.html
^No charges, no torts, fully immune.
No excuse for not going in.
Enough of your apologia for their incompetence and cowardice. Those ****ers did nothing and worse than that, stopped others from helping.
They were supposed to breach immediately by their own procedures. They stopped members of their own group from breaching, even after all tools were available. They are cowards and should be flogged, stripped of all rank, charged, convicted, and jailed. In a just world they would be executed.

There were more cops there than soldiers garrisoning the alamo, and if it killed every last one of them and they saved one child it would've been their ****ing duty and they're cowards for not taking action.

 

Obvious. Yes, just uninvent guns, and figure out some magical way to prevent a future (or present) person from reinventing them. Ever.

So, in your fantasy world, you think militaries should go back to using what, swords? Or are those to be banned and uninvented, too? How about bows and arrows? Crossbows? Semi-auto crossbows, even? Clubs?

Or are you also going to magically uninvent human aggression? What about animal aggression, are you planning to make it a crime for a bear to attack a human, or just telepathically make them not want to? And what about food? I know many of us get our food from a store, but some go out in nature and kill it themselves. Some because they want to, some because they HAVE to. Are they just supposed to starve to death? Are you going to force them to become vegans? By law, or by telepathy?

That's some fantasyland you've got built up in your head, but as I've told you oh so very many times, it's not going to happen. You think the Supremes are going to wake up next week and collectively say, "You know what, we got Heller, McDonald, and Bruen all wrong. Let's issue a new decision"?

That's just about as likely as me standing up and walking on my broke-ass legs. Some months or years from now, perhaps. But not today. For me walking, that is. I don't think the Court will ever reverse those decisions, at least not in our lifetimes, even if you happen to be a teenager. You sure think like one, anyway.

 

Pretty childish response. Your post is unimaginative.

MY solution, on the other hand, required actual research (read my sig!)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-to-ban-guns-without-firing-a-single-shot.600040/

 

no it does not, again the constitution says its the right of the PEOPLE, if he was correct it would say it is the right of the state, but unfortunately for you, the constitution protects the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms

 

Which is not the same as "own firearms". But that's a different topic. Try here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

 

AND THEN STOOD AROUND WITH THEIR DICKS IN THEIR HANDS FOR 73 MINUTES DOING NOTHING AND HELPING NO ONE

https://reason.com/2022/07/18/uvalde-shooting-report-undermines-calls-to-ban-guns-and-back-the-blue/

 

You're right, its not limited to simply firearms.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Emphasis is mine.

Please read the Bruen case and then YOU TELL THE CLASS what restrictions it allows. In searching out the knowledge yourself, you will retain it better. It will be good for you. I promise.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

 

Told to stay put by someone not in their chain of command, and against training they all received for this very situation.
The school cop dumbass should've been removed from command and the training followed IE breach immediately.

 

Is English not your first language? You where confused on what the word "people" meant and now the word "keep" seems to be confusing you.

For you to be right it would have to be replace the word "keep" with "borrow" or "sometimes use" or something like that. Keep means to retain possession. So sorry you are again wrong.

 

"People"? What nonsense. You were talking about "keep and bear arms". Now it looks like you're not confortable debating the subject, and want to change it. I understand.

You have the link, in case you care to try to research your ORIGINAL argument any further.

 

Well, if it came down over the radio by dispatch it's presumed to be from command. That's why I want to hear the radio traffic, as we will know exactly who was told what and by whom. If the guy telling other guys to stand down was not the highest ranking officer on the scene he'd have gone ignored.

I'm gonna wager that command screwed this up, as I've mentioned before. Anyone assuming command that wasn't at a state level should have shut up immediately. I think a big part of the confusion is command thinking the kids were all/mostly dead and it had become a hostage situation and not the execution we know it to be. Even then they should have had the green light when 4 guys were ready to roll, since protecting lives was the whole point of their existence.

 

Precedent means nothing anymore, show where in the constitution it specifically mentions modern bullets — otherwise it goes back to the states.
Yall are all for a strict reading using only when the constitution was written, aren't you?

 

Let's use our logic then: There were Feds on scene. It was either 1) a mass shooting or 2) a barricaded suspect.
Either can be squinted at by a fed and jurisdiction taken.
No school district cop outweighs a Fed.
Ergo: Fubar.

 

Would it actually cause you physical harm to read?

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

Being able to acquire ammunition is part of the 'to keep and bear' arms. To bear arms means to carry ready for use, and an unloaded gun isn't ready for use.

Further: That's not even what the Dobbs case ****ing says. Feel free to criticize it, but at least know what it actually ****ing says.

 

Why should I care what prior courts have ruled? SCOTUS doesn’t.

 

yeah. fubar. I know very few people who would not have gone right in but times have changed and this was a colossal f up.

 

Again: That's not even what the Dobbs case says.

Please try reading it and understanding what it says.

 

Yes keep and bear arms by the "people" its what the 2nd amendment says.. So me pointing out the word people is referring to, "the people" and not the state is not nonsense, also me pointing out the word "keep" means to "retain possession" in reply to your false claim that the second amendment does not say "to own firearm's" is also not nonsense your wrong on all accounts when it comes to the 2nd amendment

Debating the 2nd amendment is the subject, your OP you said you want to remove guns.. YOU CANT.. WHY? because "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" this has been pointed out to you by several posters multiple times. Pretending the 2nd amendment isnt ruining your whole idea is silly, pretending the 2A means something else is also silly, And trying to steer 2A debate onto another thread is also not going to work. I know you want that because the 2A has completely ruined your ideas.. but when you want to remove guns and you cant legally because of the US constitution, posters are going to point that out.. Again your ideas wont work because of the 2A