Yet ANOTHER shooting

[raceright]

Do You think we could limit this message board to its title US Message Board,to many Countries that have never had or already relinquished there freedoms post hear and they are trying to convince the easily persuaded that there countries Ideals are the best.
Only True Americans understand that Foreigners are playing with a couple of cards missing. Ok OK now we will hear from many who think they know what true americans are,fine if you are a Citizen, but if not you do not count and Kissing foreigners asses disqualifies you.
You see it is already against the law to kill people with anything
even a gun (imagine that) And Americans (especialy ex military)
are of the belief that added Gun Laws have a back door reason
and are not meant to curtail violence(wonder why) So inforce the present laws and severly punish the gun law breaker nad next lets
get the Drug dealers.

 

[KittenKoder]

PUBICHAIR,

The US federal court has never ruled on the validity of the 2nd Amendment to your Constitution. It has never been done, ever !

Sorry, but in this instance Pubs is right, while you are falling flat. Even many die hard liberals in this country do not want guns removed, for one reason: it disarms us against all tyranny. While I agree with the conservatives arguments more (disarming against criminals is more frightening) only a few are deluded enough to think that peace comes from destroying freedom.

 

[Old Rocks]

And for those who argue everyone should be armed - they are either immature or plain crazy. I have been in too many fights, arguments etc with people in public areas to want any of them armed. The death rate would simply increase. And if I want to walk or hike someplace, I do not want your average paranoid human aiming at me or my family for fear I am a home robber etc. Arming lots of people would be the last solution in a sane sensible society. Too many children die now where guns are in the house.

Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine

I have been around many people that should not be allowed within ten feet of a gun. And there are all too many others that are careless enough that their ownership of guns presents a danger to themselves and their family.

As stated before, I have been a gun owner since I was 12 years old. I hunt, and am proficient with the weopons I own. I have even been in a situation that having a gun and showing that I was ready to use it probably saved my life. It was not a one on one situation, it was myself against 10 in an isolated environment.

However, against the crazies that we have seen this last month, it is doubtful that you would even have the chance to use the gun. Most of these people had guns legally. And the people they killed, with one exception, had little to do with their resentments.

The problem here is that you gun nuts are addressing the sympton of the fear that this kind of insanity results in, rather than the cause. And creating even greater anger among citizens that do not agree with you.

A caring society and ready access to mental health aid will do more to reduce these kinds of horrors than arming a bunch of people that have little knowledge or caring about the safe handling of guns.

ROFLMNAO...

Yet another screed which opens with the declaration by the author that they're a 'responsible' gun owner and ends by quickly trotting out a sophistic rant which can only undermine her means to legally defend herself through the ownership and use of a firearm; which serves as all one needs to judge this farce as a LIE. The supporting premise, does not follow her stated conclusion... thus the premise was designed to lend her conclusion legitimacy... wholly distinct from the goal presented in her conclusion.

There is no increase in crazies killing innocent people over the last month... it happens everyday, in everyway in every state... on earth.

What we've seen over the last month is merely the intentional amplification of such; the reports by the sychophant anti-gun media; reports designed to give the impression of a CRISIS!

And as we know this Marxist administration is on record as being of the mind that they '(will) never let a CRISIS! go to waste... and this manufactured CRISIS! is designed to provide the public impetus to induce 'reasonable regulations' on the ownership and use of a firearm, which are designed to do nothing less than the infringe upon the means of the free individual to exercise their God given responsibilities to defend their lives and in so doing maintain their God given rights.

All Rock has stated in effect, is that there are crazy people living amongst us bound to injure the innocent... to FAIL TO LIVE UP TO THEIR SACRED RESPONSIBILITIES; who for whatever reason are bound to injure the innocent; and her solution is to DISARM THE INNOCENT!

The apply named Rocks, is part of the problem friends... she is the embodiment of pure evil... advocating for evil and doing so under the guise of 'caring for the sick.' And it doesn't get more SICK than that.

Sheesh Pubes, why don't you move to Paraguay. Better yet, Somolia. With your kind of mentality you would fit right in.

 

[Diuretic]

Ahh another ass kissing supposed American. Did you learn your technique from the current President or have you always been a dumb ass?

Rock - you are a unique individual.

Thankfully

I apologize for him.

(now watch him REALLY throw a tantrum)

 

[Diuretic]

Do You think we could limit this message board to its title US Message Board,to many Countries that have never had or already relinquished there freedoms post hear and they are trying to convince the easily persuaded that there countries Ideals are the best.
Only True Americans understand that Foreigners are playing with a couple of cards missing. Ok OK now we will hear from many who think they know what true americans are,fine if you are a Citizen, but if not you do not count and Kissing foreigners asses disqualifies you.
You see it is already against the law to kill people with anything
even a gun (imagine that) And Americans (especialy ex military)
are of the belief that added Gun Laws have a back door reason
and are not meant to curtail violence(wonder why) So inforce the present laws and severly punish the gun law breaker nad next lets
get the Drug dealers.

The last refuge eh?

Waaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!! These ferriners are dissing us!

 

[jillian]

PUBICHAIR,

The US federal court has never ruled on the validity of the 2nd Amendment to your Constitution. It has never been done, ever !

1. As a consttutional provision it doesn't require a ruling on it's constitutionality. And I don't believe anyone is challenging the means of passage of the bill of rights.

2. The high court HAS ruled on the construction of the 2nd amendment...D.C. v. Heller It may be a badly written decision...and it may have gone even further than the bush admin wanted b/c scalia wanted to give the finger to the next court just in case there was no more right wing majority on the court, but it IS the law as it currently stands.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

try again.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PUBICHAIR,

The US federal court has never ruled on the validity of the 2nd Amendment to your Constitution. It has never been done, ever !

ROFLMNAO... That statement is so depraved as it boggles the mind as to how to even approach the response to it.

The US 2nd Amendment is nothing more than charter protections of the stated right; a right which PRE-EXISTED THE CONSTITUTION AND WHICH THE AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION SOUGHT TO PROTECT THE MEANS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT... from the infringement of the means to exercise that right by the federal government.

The US Bill of Rights does NOT GIVE RIGHTS TO ANYONE... It merely RECOGNIZES RIGHTS WHICH ARE ENDOWED TO HUMANITY, BY THEIR CREATOR... These rights were merely what the founders, through many years of debate, determined were the most CRITICAL and thus deserved overt protections, BEYOND the mere recognition that where the US CONSTITION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE US FED GOV THE POWER TO TAKE ACTION ON A GIVEN MATTER... thus they overtly took measures to PROTECT THE MEANS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT BY FEDERAL POWER.

What's more, in those debates it noted that by amending the Constitution, that future generations would erroneously interpret the enumerated protections as the full scope of their rights... which as is nearly always the case is precisely what has happened.

Idiots such as Yukon and the full measure of the left mistakenly believe that the US Bill of Rights, 'gives' people the right to the respective issues which each amendment speaks to... nothing could be further from the truth.

Whether or not some court should determine that the protections which the US Constitution mandated are legally valid are IRRELEVANT. At least they are irrelevant to Americans... as Americans do not recognize that the US Federal judiciary as having the authority to determine what is and is NOT 'constitutionally valid' where the subject is THE FUNDAMENTAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE US CONSTITUTION...

Americans fully understand that they have a right to keep and bear arms... PERIOD. That the US Federal Judiciary may be at some point comprised of individuals who based upon their own subjective 'feelings' hold that such is NOT a right is IRRELEVANT to that right.

Where a court would hold such a position, that court would be, INCONTESTABLY, a threat to the rights, thus the lives of those over whom they assert their false authority... and it would become at that point the DUTY of every American to dispatch that court, by all means necessary in defense of their rights and their very lives.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Second Amendment is only clear to those whose reality glasses are badly smudged.

“In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all. ” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ’state armies’–’the militia’–would be maintained for the defense of the state.”

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger’s words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television.”

The Most Mysterious Right

Today's debate over the second amendment is not a debate at all...

There is no debating that "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 basis of the mandate that is IRRELEVANT...

If the basis had been "A well Fed Citizenry being necassary to the security of a free state..." or "A gaggle of Rednecks with large oversized conveyances being necessary for a free state..." NONE of it would be relevant to the mandate that THE RIGHT ... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Those, including Berger, who want to focus upon the basis in reasoning as the point of relevance, do so because of their stark intellectual limitations... the fact is that they "FEEL" that if the basis in reason which established WHY THE RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED can be shown to be no longer necessary, then they feel that there's good cause to lift the mandate and infringe upon the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT for the necessity of a secure collective.

But let's remember that the US Constitution does NOT provide rights... as the US Constitution is merely a Constitution created by men; a set of rules... Men do not have the means to give rights to anyone...

Our Rights are what they are without regard to the US Constitution and the LIMITS UPON THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO INFRINGE AND USURP THOSE NATURAL, PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS.

Where the SCOTUS may determine that the 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable, thus the Constitutional Prohibition set upon goverment power to NOT INFRINGE ON THE PRE-EXISTING RIGHT of the individual to bear and use arms in defense of themselves, their rights and those of their neighbors... THUS ENSURING THE FREEDOM OF THEIR NATION... OKA: The State were determined to be null and void; this would IN NO WAY EFFECT MY RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS... it would simply place the US Government in direct contest of my rights and thus make it necessary for me and those of like mind to alter that government by whatever means is necessary...

The simple fact is that in the final analysis, the State Militia, the last reserves in defense of any state, is the well equipped and armed (OKA: REGULATED) citizenry... and that is BEYOND any standing armies which the state and or Federal Government may be maintaining.

Rocks would have LIKED TO HAVE advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument in response to this post, but the best she could do is to post a flaccid neg-rep which lamented the highliting of key points...

But, hey... that's the best she could do, given that she has no understanding of the principles at play on this issue... or any other for that matter. So she reacts to her impotent rage through various invalid means; which is the best an idiot can do.

 

[Yukon]

"...a flaccid...impotent..."

PubicHAIR,

Could the above be a freudian slip?

 

[KittenKoder]

"...a flaccid...impotent..."

PubicHAIR,

Could the above be a freudian slip?

Yukon, when you move here, work here for 20 solid and consecutive years, and stop taking advantage of our loopholes .... then you will have grounds for an argument in this, but if you did do that you wouldn't be wishing to have anyone disarmed against our criminals.