Was the Nashville shooting a hate crime?

[LibertyKid]

I didn't say it justified it but understanding why certain communities have a larger percentage of not only crime, criminals and ganags, but also victims (because they are preying on the people in those communities) is the first step in solving it. A lot of people don't want to hear that the most effective way of reducing crime is investing in communities, education, after school programs, job training and reparations. More policing doesn't address the social inequities that lead to more crime, it just plays a never ending game of whack a mole with criminals.

I don't disagree with most of that. Reparations completely different convo. One of the issues is the perception that the black community (not all mind you) doesn't want to take those steps to educate themselves, to train, to acquire skills. We also need to stop systemic welfare across all races. As a country we have to do better at encouraging and educating our citizenry on how to become lawful and productive citizens.

No. The same was not afforded to everyone regardless of race. Thats completely ignorant and contrary to the history of this country.

But you missed my point. When I went to college in the mid-90s, everyone could go to school and be awarded a pell grant if you financially qualified. 60 years ago it was different. We all agree to that. But those laws and restrictions are gone. Today, anyone who wakes up in this country and doesn't like their current socio-economic situation can do something about it. Yes, it might require some schooling, training, etc., but it is there for anyone to take advantage. And if you are a minority, there are many social programs that help you even more. We have to stop bitching about the past and look towards the future.

 

[gipper]

You posted:

"If you think outlawing guns will stop these killings, you’re fooling yourself."

Yet, it's been proven in many countries and during the time that the Brady bill was in force, gun laws do extremely reduce the incidence of mass murders.

No. That’s a fallacy. I’m surprised you fell for it.

 

[LibertyKid]

There's a whole lot more to the Constitution then the 2nd amendment - but that's the only part that you wingnuts seem to know about.

The 2nd amendment does not give an unlimited right to bear arms. It's questionable whether it gives any right to the individual. It's exact wording indicate that the "Right of the people to bears arms" is justification for and satisfied by "A well regulated militia", not by each individual owning arms. That's why they are contained in the same sentence:

"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."

If you could read English, you'd know that the second and third phrases are adjective phrases describing "A well regulated militia"

The entire sentence means:
"A well regulated Militia... shall not be infringed."

I'm not about to research the political leaning of every mass murderer, but it's obvious that your extremely biased on the issue and are posting pure bullshit.

However, history doesn't back up your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, why weren't guns confiscated when the Constitution was signed and only given to Militias?

Prior to the revolution it is well documented that the British wanted to disarm colonists and the resistance of the patriots to that disarming. Given the historical precedence of arming citizens only gives more credence that the 2A applies to not only formed militias but also to the people. The founding fathers would have never taken away the right to bear arms from anyone understanding how critical it was to be armed prior and during the revolution.

'The Arms of All The People Should Be Taken Away' | Stephen P. Halbrook

As we celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, evidence has been discovered that shows the Second Amendment was prompted by British plans to disarm each and every American. In 1777, William Knox, Under Secretary of State in the British colonial Office, circulated a proposal entitled...

www.independent.org

 

[Ralph Norton]

"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."

If you could read English, you'd know that the second and third phrases are adjective phrases describing "A well regulated militia"

The entire sentence means:
"A well regulated Militia... shall not be infringed."

Still a dumb ass I see.
How the hell do you "infringe" a Militia?

 

[buttercup]

I didn't read the thread... but people shouldn't even go along with the whole idea of "hate crimes." It's Orwellian (The Thought Police) and just an underhanded way to try to dismantle certain freedoms that are not crimes at all.

 

[Richard-H]

No. That’s a fallacy. I’m surprised you fell for it.

Are you really that stupid or are you just full of shit?

See my signature....

 

[Richard-H]

Still a dumb ass I see.
How the hell do you "infringe" a Militia?

the same way you infringe anything, dumbass.

 

[Richard-H]

However, history doesn't back up your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, why weren't guns confiscated when the Constitution was signed and only given to Militias?

Prior to the revolution it is well documented that the British wanted to disarm colonists and the resistance of the patriots to that disarming. Given the historical precedence of arming citizens only gives more credence that the 2A applies to not only formed militias but also to the people. The founding fathers would have never taken away the right to bear arms from anyone understanding how critical it was to be armed prior and during the revolution.

'The Arms of All The People Should Be Taken Away' | Stephen P. Halbrook

As we celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, evidence has been discovered that shows the Second Amendment was prompted by British plans to disarm each and every American. In 1777, William Knox, Under Secretary of State in the British colonial Office, circulated a proposal entitled...

www.independent.org

Just because there was no mandate to disarm the population does not mean that they had a right.

 

[LibertyKid]

Just because there was no mandate to disarm the population does not mean that they had a right.

Wow, you pretty much dismissed my entire point with that response.
How do you interpret a historical document?
Consider the authors
Consider the audience
Consider historical contexts
Consider historical purpose
Consider the purpose of the document

The founding fathers would have absolutely contradicted themselves by limiting the 2A to militias.
Then you can also consider the absolute facts that the gov't has always had private citizens who were armed, and at times better armed than their own military.
Then after the wars, what happened with the surplus... sold to the public. Cheese and rice! Only now do we have some of you that want to rewrite intent knowing full well the original intent.

The following video, despite the click bait title, has some very informative and historical information: I suggest a quick viewing.

 

[gipper]

Are you really that stupid or are you just full of shit?

See my signature....

You’re a very angry person. I feel sorry for you.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Still a dumb ass I see.
How the hell do you "infringe" a Militia?

the same way you infringe anything, dumbass.

And that's supposed to be an explanation?
I take everything back - you're really smart.

 

[Richard-H]

Wow, you pretty much dismissed my entire point with that response.
How do you interpret a historical document?
Consider the authors
Consider the audience
Consider historical contexts
Consider historical purpose
Consider the purpose of the document

The founding fathers would have absolutely contradicted themselves by limiting the 2A to militias.
Then you can also consider the absolute facts that the gov't has always had private citizens who were armed, and at times better armed than their own military.
Then after the wars, what happened with the surplus... sold to the public. Cheese and rice! Only now do we have some of you that want to rewrite intent knowing full well the original intent.

The following video, despite the click bait title, has some very informative and historical information: I suggest a quick viewing.

Or you could consider the actual statement as written. The founding fathers, and James Madison were extremely well educated and know how to read and write English very well.

The first amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It clearly separates each subject with the word "or". Yet in the second amendment, there is no "or" or "and" separating it into different subjects:

"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."

It's clear that the second and third phrases are adjective phrases related to the subject of the sentence - "A well regulated Militia", not individual subject themselves.

If they intended for the people to have a right to bear arms they would have written it as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If I wrote:

"Mike, a handsome fellow, friend of Bob, is a cool guy" - it all pertains to "Mike"

But if I wrote:

"Mike, a handsome fellow, or friend of Bob, is a cool guy"

It means that the "Friend of Bob" is not necessarily Mike. "Friend of Bob" is a different subject than "Mike".

¿Hablas inglés?

BTW - YOu've cherry picked a few examples of American gun ownership, but none of them mean that there's a individual right.

We've had the Brady bill to limit gun ownership, and the gun fight at the O.K. corral which was also about gun control...so there are plenty of times gun control has been the law in the U.S.

 

[Richard-H]

And that's supposed to be an explanation?
I take everything back - you're really smart.

I can think of a few militia members that have been charged with seditious conspiracy as of late.

 

[Richard-H]

You’re a very angry person. I feel sorry for you.

Awww, I'm sorry....just because school children are routinely getting murdered gives me no reason at all to get upset.

If you can't understand that, then you are a very, very sick person...and I don't feel sorry for you!

 

[BrokeLoser]

There's a whole lot more to the Constitution then the 2nd amendment - but that's the only part that you wingnuts seem to know about.

The 2nd amendment does not give an unlimited right to bear arms. It's questionable whether it gives any right to the individual. It's exact wording indicate that the "Right of the people to bears arms" is justification for and satisfied by "A well regulated militia", not by each individual owning arms. That's why they are contained in the same sentence:

"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."

If you could read English, you'd know that the second and third phrases are adjective phrases describing "A well regulated militia"

The entire sentence means:
"A well regulated Militia... shall not be infringed."

I'm not about to research the political leaning of every mass murderer, but it's obvious that your extremely biased on the issue and are posting pure bullshit.

Our great founders were referring to We The Armed People as that well regulated militia, they wanted you to be armed to prevent a government from turning tyrannical.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
The founders intent is made crystal clear by the third and fourth phrase.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let me know what else you’d like me to teach you?

 

[LibertyKid]

Or you could consider the actual statement as written. The founding fathers, and James Madison were extremely well educated and know how to read and write English very well.

The first amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It clearly separates each subject with the word "or". Yet in the second amendment, there is no "or" or "and" separating it into different subjects:

"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."

It's clear that the second and third phrases are adjective phrases related to the subject of the sentence - "A well regulated Militia", not individual subject themselves.

If they intended for the people to have a right to bear arms they would have written it as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If I wrote:

"Mike, a handsome fellow, friend of Bob, is a cool guy" - it all pertains to "Mike"

But if I wrote:

"Mike, a handsome fellow, or friend of Bob, is a cool guy"

It means that the "Friend of Bob" is not necessarily Mike. "Friend of Bob" is a different subject than "Mike".

¿Hablas inglés?

BTW - YOu've cherry picked a few examples of American gun ownership, but none of them mean that there's a individual right.

We've had the Brady bill to limit gun ownership, and the gun fight at the O.K. corral which was also about gun control...so there are plenty of times gun control has been the law in the U.S.

A lot of mental gymnastics in an attempt to reinterpret the 2A. You ignore the historical context, both pre and post revolutionary war and even into modern history that supports the interpretation of the 2A. I don't even hear the MSM or politicians using this angle. We can agree to disagree. It s obvious you have your thought and interpretation. I'll use context, intent, audience, and historical relevance to help frame the meaning.

 

[kyzr]

A lot of mental gymnastics in an attempt to reinterpret the 2A. You ignore the historical context, both pre and post revolutionary war and even into modern history that supports the interpretation of the 2A. I don't even hear the MSM or politicians using this angle. We can agree to disagree. It s obvious you have your thought and interpretation. I'll use context, intent, audience, and historical relevance to help frame the meaning.

The USSC already said that only they can correctly interpret the US Constitution.

The Constitution Means What the Supreme Court Says It Means - Harvard Law Review

[T]he Constitution requires not following the dictates of the document but working out, over time, a complex balance among institutional interests. That is how...

harvardlawreview.org

 

[Kondor3]

Was the Nashville shooting a Hate Crime?

Yes.

 

[kyzr]

Was the Nashville shooting a Hate Crime?

Yes.

I'd add "against Christians"

 

[Kondor3]

I'd add "against Christians"

Agreed. I'll go one further... sleazy Left-leaning media are actively resisting such labeling or even covering that as a possibility... it goes against their agenda.