Learning the wrong lesson. Gun Control.

[captkaos]

The AR-15 is not a military weapon you loon its functionally no different than a semi-automatic .227 hunting rifle. Its like arguing with a brick with you people. You will not educate yourself on firearms and continuously make the same stupid ass comments.

The large, removable, magazine capability makes all the difference. You are disingenuous to ignore it. Worse than a brick. The AK/AR derivatives of military weapons have no place in a civilised society.

As long as then Govt owns and deploys weapons and a Military arm, The people must have effective defense against it. "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms may not be infringed" Kinda useless to have the right to address your grievances to Govt without the right to protect yourself from that Govt when it becomes oppressive to the rights of the PEOPLE.

 

[captkaos]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon you loon its functionally no different than a semi-automatic .227 hunting rifle. Its like arguing with a brick with you people. You will not educate yourself on firearms and continuously make the same stupid ass comments.

If they had an AR in the closet they wouldn't be so scared would they!

 

[SavannahMann]

Large capacity magazine on the Christchurch shooter's weapon. For Savannah man.

In violation of New Zealand law.

 

[SavannahMann]

I could misapply the famous Ben Franklin quote here, but why? Let’s get to dealing with truth.

There were several reasons why the Second Amendment was passed. People tend to fixate on one, or another, of the reasons. But as I said above, we are dealing with truth. The Truth is that the Founders wanted to insure that this nation could never be invaded by a foreign power. They had just won a war where the Militia, that is to say the citizens who took up personal arms to fight the enemy, had played a major part. So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.

But there is more. The Founders also knew that man was capable of a lot of things, good and bad. They knew that the Kings of Europe got power by subjugation of the population. An armed population would insure that the American Government would never be able to subjugate the citizens.

Yes, there is even more. The Founders also realized that there would be dangers in the frontiers, where threats to survival existed, in two legged, and four legged form.

I could type for a hour giving you all the various reasons that the Second Amendment was proposed, approved, and ratified. But here is another truth. None of those reasons matter to the anti gun people.

This is where your Patriotism comes into question. The desire to Support and Defend the Constitution, not just parts of it, but all of it. It is my almost certainly arrogant opinion that supposed Christians who attack someone claiming that God hates this, or that, from the Bible, are not truly Christian. They have to deal with the entire Bible, not just the portion they are quoting. They have to understand the message behind the Bible, and the lessons of God’s love, and His desires. They miss that message when they pick one small phrase out of a billion and run with it.

There was an episode of Major Dad that comes to mind. The High School of his oldest Step Daughter had established a Dress Code. The Daughter wrote an article for the School Newspaper critical of the policy. Major Dad went in to meet with the Teacher and discuss the article. The teacher asked several questions, and the Marine Major agreed that rules mattered, and it was incumbent upon people to obey the rules, and dress codes mattered. Then the Teacher said. “So I can see you agree that this article should not be published.” To this the Major said No Ma’am. He explained that somewhere in the school was a Civics Textbook, and in the book was the First Amendment, including Freedom of the press. He had sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution. All of it. Including the right of the press to write articles that were controversial.

That is my feelings towards the Constitution. I believe it all matters. Not just a bit here, or there. But every single line, and every single right. Even if the person using the right, or claiming it, is someone I disagree with. It does not matter. The individual, or the event, is not, and never can be, greater than the right for the future. No matter how horrific the act might be, the larger question, the Constitution, must endure.

So those who say they Love America, but hate the Second Amendment, and try to find ways to chip away at it, do not love this nation. Limiting rights is not the American way. It is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the reason the document has soul. It is our dedication to those rights that determines the future. Because Democracy is not what we have. Democracy is where a group votes to take from the individual. We have a Republic. That is where the rights of the Individual, matter more than the desires of the group. The right of the individual to denounce the Government they disapprove of, is sacrosanct. It is sacred. It must be defended by the majority, even if, especially if, they disagree with what the individual is saying.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. If you enjoy your rights, you must be willing to defend the rights of the people you disagree with. When I hear someone saying something that I disagree with, or is insulting. The first thing I think is Thank God for the First Amendment. When I hear that someone has bought a gun, I think Thank God for the Second Amendment. When a Judge throws out Evidence that is gotten illegally, and a criminal walks free. I think Thank God. Because those rights are being eroded far too fast now. And we need to push back, or none of us will have any rights at all. And that will be the death of America.

“So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.”

Wrong.

Really? Let’s see what the Founders thought.

Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

There is nothing in the text or case law of the Second Amendment which supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘insurrectionist dogma’ – the Framers would not have amended the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they just created.

“This is where your Patriotism comes into question.”

Wrong.

Americans can debate the issues and disagree in good faith, having nothing to do with ‘patriotism.’

And Americans who support certain firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment case law are just as patriotic as those who oppose such measures.

“That is my feelings towards the Constitution. I believe it all matters. Not just a bit here, or there. But every single line, and every single right.”

Your ‘feelings’ are as simplistic as they are ridiculous.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

To be faithful to the Constitution, to ‘believe’ in the Constitution is to accept and support that Constitutional case law, to acknowledge the fact that no right is ‘unlimited,’ and the fact that government (the people) have the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

“So those who say they Love America, but hate the Second Amendment, and try to find ways to chip away at it, do not love this nation.”

Wrong.

No one ‘hates’ the Second Amendment – to advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘hate’ the Second Amendment.

“Limiting rights is not the American way. It is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the reason the document has soul.”

Ignorant and wrong.

The people have the authority to enact laws and measures which place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights; indeed, it is settled and accepted that laws enacted at the behest of the people are presumed to be Constitutional out of deference for the will of the people (see, e.g. US v. Morrison (2000)).

And when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process – a law or measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court determines that to be the case.

“And we need to push back, or none of us will have any rights at all.”

Wrong.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Again, advocating for firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment case law is not to ‘take away’ anyone’s Second Amendment rights; and none of the propose regulations have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

The founders disagreed with your assertions. Perhaps you should try reading the history instead of the findings of the Courts which go directly against the statements of the Founders themselves.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I was at the range all mornin pew pew pew
diggin the semi retired life

"""insurrectionist dogma """

And given the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of measures placing limits and restrictions on firearms designated to be assault weapons, such restrictions and measures are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

which means they're gonna call em all assault rifles

heard that one before.
I've also heard we're not going to take your guns .
Thats what they all say ...drip drip drip ...creep creep creep
step by step ,inch by inch

the good news for patriots
Counties and towns are already declaring themselves 2nd amendment sanctuary districts. the movement only seems to be growing .....thanks to the dumb ass gun grabbers

"we dont wanna take your guns" ...
fuckin do gooder pretend lawyers ...

When anyone would ever threaten me with a lawsuit my response would usually be : Oh yeah ....yeah ?call my lawyer hes a nasty Jew on 7th Av .See ya in court ratzo have a nice day.

In other words Indeed see ya in the supreme court over what constitutes an "assault weapon"
ANd FYI ...either way they rule? i still don't care cause i ain't turning jack shit over. now multiply me by 20 million ...low ballin

since i don't care i'm just gonna meme out with some "insurrectionist dogma"

BFYTW ist

 

[hunarcy]

AR 15 is not a military weapon, idiot.

The semantic defence. Hilarity.

You post something that is totally WRONG and you call it a "semantic defense"? It's sad to see someone abusing their first amendment right as you are. You aren't someone who can contribute to a real discussion, so you're going on ignore.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I've fired every thing from a .22 pistol to a heavy machine gun you people do not know what the fuck your talking about. You want to ban shit because of cosmetics.

If you want to pretend a large removable magazine on a semi automatic is inconsequential, well, that shows you know shit about firearms.

Well in New Zealand, the law is that your magazines may only hold seven rounds. Less than the Ten that gun control advocates say is more than enough. How did that law work out?

As well as laws prohibiting murder – should laws prohibiting murder be repealed because they ‘don’t work.’

There is no Constitutional right to murder someone.

 

[hunarcy]

I've fired every thing from a .22 pistol to a heavy machine gun you people do not know what the fuck your talking about. You want to ban shit because of cosmetics.

If you want to pretend a large removable magazine on a semi automatic is inconsequential, well, that shows you know shit about firearms.

Well in New Zealand, the law is that your magazines may only hold seven rounds. Less than the Ten that gun control advocates say is more than enough. How did that law work out?

As well as laws prohibiting murder – should laws prohibiting murder be repealed because they ‘don’t work.’

No, because those laws regulate behavior, which is what laws should do. Laws regulating THINGS don't work. Witness the "war on drugs"

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[miketx]

 

[M14 Shooter]

Large capacity magazine on the Christchurch shooter's weapon.

These are illegal, aren't they? Huh.
In the US, that's a standard capacity magazine

 

[M14 Shooter]

Be thankful for the limited casualties. You know, it's as though you've never thought why military weapons have large capacity detachable magazines. Oh well, the denial of US gun nuts is legendary.

One of these days you will post something factual and meaningful.
Today is not that day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

AR 15 is not a military weapon, idiot.

The semantic defence. Hilarity.

Wait...
YOU call it a military weapon when it is not a military weapons, and when someone calls you on it, you cry "semantics"?
Do you lie to yourself like this across your entire life, or just when you're here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are a liar as always. There is no comparison between it and real military weapons.

Apart from maybe missing a bayonet lug, a flash hider and selective fire. Right. No Comparison.

Translation:
Except for all the things that prove it is it not a military weapon, it's a military weapon.

 

[M14 Shooter]

“So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.”
Wrong.

Your entire post is nothing but unsupportable nonsense.
As per the norm.

Americans can debate the issues and disagree in good faith, having nothing to do with ‘patriotism.’

Anti-gun loons dot not -ever- debate in good faith.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
And given the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of measures placing limits and restrictions on firearms designated to be assault weapons, such restrictions and measures are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

You know full well this statement is false.

 

[miketx]

I could misapply the famous Ben Franklin quote here, but why? Let’s get to dealing with truth.

There were several reasons why the Second Amendment was passed. People tend to fixate on one, or another, of the reasons. But as I said above, we are dealing with truth. The Truth is that the Founders wanted to insure that this nation could never be invaded by a foreign power. They had just won a war where the Militia, that is to say the citizens who took up personal arms to fight the enemy, had played a major part. So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.

But there is more. The Founders also knew that man was capable of a lot of things, good and bad. They knew that the Kings of Europe got power by subjugation of the population. An armed population would insure that the American Government would never be able to subjugate the citizens.

Yes, there is even more. The Founders also realized that there would be dangers in the frontiers, where threats to survival existed, in two legged, and four legged form.

I could type for a hour giving you all the various reasons that the Second Amendment was proposed, approved, and ratified. But here is another truth. None of those reasons matter to the anti gun people.

This is where your Patriotism comes into question. The desire to Support and Defend the Constitution, not just parts of it, but all of it. It is my almost certainly arrogant opinion that supposed Christians who attack someone claiming that God hates this, or that, from the Bible, are not truly Christian. They have to deal with the entire Bible, not just the portion they are quoting. They have to understand the message behind the Bible, and the lessons of God’s love, and His desires. They miss that message when they pick one small phrase out of a billion and run with it.

There was an episode of Major Dad that comes to mind. The High School of his oldest Step Daughter had established a Dress Code. The Daughter wrote an article for the School Newspaper critical of the policy. Major Dad went in to meet with the Teacher and discuss the article. The teacher asked several questions, and the Marine Major agreed that rules mattered, and it was incumbent upon people to obey the rules, and dress codes mattered. Then the Teacher said. “So I can see you agree that this article should not be published.” To this the Major said No Ma’am. He explained that somewhere in the school was a Civics Textbook, and in the book was the First Amendment, including Freedom of the press. He had sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution. All of it. Including the right of the press to write articles that were controversial.

That is my feelings towards the Constitution. I believe it all matters. Not just a bit here, or there. But every single line, and every single right. Even if the person using the right, or claiming it, is someone I disagree with. It does not matter. The individual, or the event, is not, and never can be, greater than the right for the future. No matter how horrific the act might be, the larger question, the Constitution, must endure.

So those who say they Love America, but hate the Second Amendment, and try to find ways to chip away at it, do not love this nation. Limiting rights is not the American way. It is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the reason the document has soul. It is our dedication to those rights that determines the future. Because Democracy is not what we have. Democracy is where a group votes to take from the individual. We have a Republic. That is where the rights of the Individual, matter more than the desires of the group. The right of the individual to denounce the Government they disapprove of, is sacrosanct. It is sacred. It must be defended by the majority, even if, especially if, they disagree with what the individual is saying.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. If you enjoy your rights, you must be willing to defend the rights of the people you disagree with. When I hear someone saying something that I disagree with, or is insulting. The first thing I think is Thank God for the First Amendment. When I hear that someone has bought a gun, I think Thank God for the Second Amendment. When a Judge throws out Evidence that is gotten illegally, and a criminal walks free. I think Thank God. Because those rights are being eroded far too fast now. And we need to push back, or none of us will have any rights at all. And that will be the death of America.

“So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.”

Wrong.

There is nothing in the text or case law of the Second Amendment which supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘insurrectionist dogma’ – the Framers would not have amended the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they just created.

“This is where your Patriotism comes into question.”

Wrong.

Americans can debate the issues and disagree in good faith, having nothing to do with ‘patriotism.’

And Americans who support certain firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment case law are just as patriotic as those who oppose such measures.

“That is my feelings towards the Constitution. I believe it all matters. Not just a bit here, or there. But every single line, and every single right.”

Your ‘feelings’ are as simplistic as they are ridiculous.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

To be faithful to the Constitution, to ‘believe’ in the Constitution is to accept and support that Constitutional case law, to acknowledge the fact that no right is ‘unlimited,’ and the fact that government (the people) have the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

“So those who say they Love America, but hate the Second Amendment, and try to find ways to chip away at it, do not love this nation.”

Wrong.

No one ‘hates’ the Second Amendment – to advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘hate’ the Second Amendment.

“Limiting rights is not the American way. It is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the reason the document has soul.”

Ignorant and wrong.

The people have the authority to enact laws and measures which place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights; indeed, it is settled and accepted that laws enacted at the behest of the people are presumed to be Constitutional out of deference for the will of the people (see, e.g. US v. Morrison (2000)).

And when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process – a law or measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court determines that to be the case.

“And we need to push back, or none of us will have any rights at all.”

Wrong.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Again, advocating for firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment case law is not to ‘take away’ anyone’s Second Amendment rights; and none of the propose regulations have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Liar, An armed populace started this country. The Vietnamese peasants held off the US army. Afghan cave dwellers held off the Soviet army. lol

 

[M14 Shooter]

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy – as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.
No one wants to ‘take away’ your guns; no one can ‘take away’ your guns.
This idiocy is delusional paranoia, completely devoid of fact and merit.

You are fully aware of the fact your statements are false.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They support tyranny.
They believe in fascism.
Therefore according to them, The People should be rendered defenseless and unable to resist.

The state cannot have a monopoly on force, so long as the people remained armed.

Wrong.
The state and the people are one in the same...

You are fully aware of the fact your statements are false.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As well as laws prohibiting murder – should laws prohibiting murder be repealed because they ‘don’t work.’

You truly are a childish twit.