What would you do with the second amendment?

[sparky]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,

I'm fairly sure under the PA , where only the executive branch dictates martial law , that the military can be ordered to do exactly that.

It's not a pretty thought, and i can image troops being torn over having to do so w/o any good reason

Unfortunate such laws exist that literally fly in the face of constitutionality

~S~

 

[Issa]

Present your facts. You seem to not be doing that. Otherwise, you are just running off at the mouth once again.

Here ya go Duhryl

Rate of sexual violence against women has risen dramatically since 2012, ABS says

One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.

Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a ******* commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...

Americans have more weapons than any nation on earth, and they also top the chart in homicide, crimes, gun violence, rape, robberies. So much for having weapons huh?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here ya go Duhryl

Rate of sexual violence against women has risen dramatically since 2012, ABS says

One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.

Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a ******* commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

Things were much simpler in 1780. The writing of the 2nd amendment made sense then. We still need a 2nd amendment but updated for todays needs. In order to do that, it would have to be repealed because a new amendment that would supercede it would do exactly that in order to bring it into the modern world. This is what we should be talking about. Not banning all guns. Banning all guns just ain't going to happen. Insisting on that makes about as much sense as the gun crazies saying that all regulations are Unconstitutional.

What would you suggest then?

~S~

As it's already been proven, those that are licensed are not part of the problem. If any weapon is used as the go to weapon with the highest body count, move it up one step. Make it have to have a FFL license. If anyone can pass a simple background check to purchase any regular firearm, they can easily pass the first step license in the FFL licensing. Okay, it will cost 200 bucks. It will also require proper storage. Had the Father of the last school shooting had the proper storage, his weapons would not have been available so easy to his son. But those were normal firearms and I don't think they would apply for this idea. But a couple of the School Shootings with high body counts by teens under the age of 21, it would have. In fact, all of the shooting where the AR was used in the mass shootings would have probably been prevented. People that have to be properly licensed are NOT the problem and never have been. It's a right to own own one but it's the communities right to require you to be licensed.

Raise the age limit to purchase or possess firearms except under direct supervision to the age of 21. Again, there goes another crop of Mass Shooters.

Out law the 30 round clips. Colorado has a 15 round mag limit. While I would have had the limit at 20, 15 still works. The 30, 50 and 100 round mags means that the AR can put out a lot of ammo fast. The only good news about the 100 round is it is prone to jam at an unspecified number of rounds. The Theater Shooter had his jam just over 50 rounds.

Everyone needs to have a background check when purchasing a weapon. This should include private sales. Colorado went to that. You can do private sales but you have to go to a gun dealer and have them run the background check before you can purchase them privately. At gunshows, there are always a few gun dealers with the ability to run a background check. For 7 or 8 bucks, that's not too much to ask.

I am a big proponent of CCW. I see so many potential problems with open carry without the CCW. If a person wants to open carry, require them to also have a CCW license. The ones that don't have the CCW strut, roll their hips and are more into intimidation than anything else. To them, it's showing their Manhood. I won't stop the open carry but it would be best to not have it and just have CCW. Make the bad guy try and guess who is armed and who isn't. It also gives the CCW person the option not to draw the weapon. I won't go into why that option might be used.

If a firearm is used in a crime, the person that owns that firearm should be equally held responsible for the crime as if they held the weapon. If they want to be sloppy in storage and their kid goes to school and shoots 7 kids then the owner of that weapon should also be standing trial for First Degree Homicide. If the gun is used in a robbery then the owner should be held responsible for that crime as well. The owner should be held responsible for the security of the weapon or they should not have them in the first place.

That's about it. I find these as the common sense gun laws outside of the normal automatic, explosives laws.

Can't wait for the Gun Nutters responses on this one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,

I'm fairly sure under the PA , where only the executive branch dictates martial law , that the military can be ordered to do exactly that.

It's not a pretty thought, and i can image troops being torn over having to do so w/o any good reason

Unfortunate such laws exist that literally fly in the face of constitutionality

~S~

These fringe gun nutters keep trying to find a way to win an armed Insurrection. There isn't one. By 1869, the laws were passed that prevented that from every happening for whatever good or bad. The Civil war hut the Nation in more ways than we can know.

 

[sparky]

One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.

Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a ******* commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

Things were much simpler in 1780. The writing of the 2nd amendment made sense then. We still need a 2nd amendment but updated for todays needs. In order to do that, it would have to be repealed because a new amendment that would supercede it would do exactly that in order to bring it into the modern world. This is what we should be talking about. Not banning all guns. Banning all guns just ain't going to happen. Insisting on that makes about as much sense as the gun crazies saying that all regulations are Unconstitutional.

What would you suggest then?

~S~

As it's already been proven, those that are licensed are not part of the problem. If any weapon is used as the go to weapon with the highest body count, move it up one step. Make it have to have a FFL license. If anyone can pass a simple background check to purchase any regular firearm, they can easily pass the first step license in the FFL licensing. Okay, it will cost 200 bucks. It will also require proper storage. Had the Father of the last school shooting had the proper storage, his weapons would not have been available so easy to his son. But those were normal firearms and I don't think they would apply for this idea. But a couple of the School Shootings with high body counts by teens under the age of 21, it would have. In fact, all of the shooting where the AR was used in the mass shootings would have probably been prevented. People that have to be properly licensed are NOT the problem and never have been. It's a right to own own one but it's the communities right to require you to be licensed.

Raise the age limit to purchase or possess firearms except under direct supervision to the age of 21. Again, there goes another crop of Mass Shooters.

Out law the 30 round clips. Colorado has a 15 round mag limit. While I would have had the limit at 20, 15 still works. The 30, 50 and 100 round mags means that the AR can put out a lot of ammo fast. The only good news about the 100 round is it is prone to jam at an unspecified number of rounds. The Theater Shooter had his jam just over 50 rounds.

Everyone needs to have a background check when purchasing a weapon. This should include private sales. Colorado went to that. You can do private sales but you have to go to a gun dealer and have them run the background check before you can purchase them privately. At gunshows, there are always a few gun dealers with the ability to run a background check. For 7 or 8 bucks, that's not too much to ask.

I am a big proponent of CCW. I see so many potential problems with open carry without the CCW. If a person wants to open carry, require them to also have a CCW license. The ones that don't have the CCW strut, roll their hips and are more into intimidation than anything else. To them, it's showing their Manhood. I won't stop the open carry but it would be best to not have it and just have CCW. Make the bad guy try and guess who is armed and who isn't. It also gives the CCW person the option not to draw the weapon. I won't go into why that option might be used.

If a firearm is used in a crime, the person that owns that firearm should be equally held responsible for the crime as if they held the weapon. If they want to be sloppy in storage and their kid goes to school and shoots 7 kids then the owner of that weapon should also be standing trial for First Degree Homicide. If the gun is used in a robbery then the owner should be held responsible for that crime as well. The owner should be held responsible for the security of the weapon or they should not have them in the first place.

That's about it. I find these as the common sense gun laws outside of the normal automatic, explosives laws.

Can't wait for the Gun Nutters responses on this one.

I find your response rather acceptable 'common sense laws' Daryl

thx

~S~

 

[sparky]

These fringe gun nutters keep trying to find a way to win an armed Insurrection. There isn't one. By 1869, the laws were passed that prevented that from every happening for whatever good or bad. The Civil war hut the Nation in more ways than we can know.

Any 'people's well regulated militia' would obviously have a pathetic response against our (or any) standing military.

Even if say, for the sake of debating this hail Mary notion, an individual state were to acquire similar arms ,barracks and training having succeeded , it would easily be chocked off from resources being isolated .

That said, there's plenty of 'em that are opining via the 'net, many hailing from groups such as the 3%ers >>3 Percenters - Wikipedia, who claim to 'be ready' to engage in such futility.

Myself, i think a well regulated militia could be a reality , could be a 10ther opportunity , might actually train the 'people' towards the proper gun etiquette that i see as (jmho) a HUGE impediment to a gun culture.

Personally, i've experienced too many episodes of 'Ahole w/gun' serving the public , which gains little fanfare alongside the 'guy with gun makes good' , so as long as i have to live by the gun ,in a gun culture , with my guns ,and neighbors with guns , and CCW gun owners i simply see the key to one being dominant over the other as coming down to training

thx

~S~

 

[JoeB131]

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,

I'm sure a week in the stockade and a bad conduct discharge would discourage that kind of shit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

These fringe gun nutters keep trying to find a way to win an armed Insurrection. There isn't one. By 1869, the laws were passed that prevented that from every happening for whatever good or bad. The Civil war hut the Nation in more ways than we can know.

Any 'people's well regulated militia' would obviously have a pathetic response against our (or any) standing military.

Even if say, for the sake of debating this hail Mary notion, an individual state were to acquire similar arms ,barracks and training having succeeded , it would easily be chocked off from resources being isolated .

That said, there's plenty of 'em that are opining via the 'net, many hailing from groups such as the 3%ers >>3 Percenters - Wikipedia, who claim to 'be ready' to engage in such futility.

Myself, i think a well regulated militia could be a reality , could be a 10ther opportunity , might actually train the 'people' towards the proper gun etiquette that i see as (jmho) a HUGE impediment to a gun culture.

Personally, i've experienced too many episodes of 'Ahole w/gun' serving the public , which gains little fanfare alongside the 'guy with gun makes good' , so as long as i have to live by the gun ,in a gun culture , with my guns ,and neighbors with guns , and CCW gun owners i simply see the key to one being dominant over the other as coming down to training

thx

~S~

Having spent over 20 years in the Military and served alongside Army Units, I have to laugh at the Girlscouts playing with Guns in the Woods who actually believe that they can win in a firefight with, say, the 82nd Airborne. One of the Mottos of the 82nd is that they are there to kill people and break things. And they are very good at just those two things. They were in Afghanistan and had to be pulled because they were way too rough. They can't be used in Iraq for the same reason. They don't play well with others. Ask a couple of Guard units what happens if you decide to play rough with the 82nd. You'll find a few other large Army Units like the 101st the same way. Their whole life is to kill people and break things. And they do it full time.

Both of these units and others can be in your face with heavy weapons in a matter of a couple of days unless they get real serious. Then they can be there in a matter of a few hours. The 101st will be traveling light. But the 82nd will bring in Howitzers, and all kinds of heavy weapons as well. The children playing war in the woods won't be ready for something like the combine effort from the 101st and the 82nd. the 82nd, alone, will field about 20,000 paratroopers. I don't know how many the 101st will bring to the dance but it will be staggering. By the time you add in the Marines Quick Response Units and the other Army fast response units, it will probably be right around 100,000. And all of these troops operate on the creed of "Kill People and Break Things". The Logistics is already in place.

 

[kaz]

The federal military would never go against their own folk, They would tell the bureaucrats to **** off

You know nothing about the Military Tradition, Culture, UCMJ, Oath that makes up the Military. If a state tries to break free and votes to do so, the entire State Government becomes enemies of the United States. And in the Oath that each and every service member has taken, they are to protect the Nation against enemies of the United States of America both Foreign and Domestic. I took that oath 5 times as many other did as well. In fact, every Military Person that ever served took the same exact oath. The US Congress would be well within their powers to send in the United States Military to Arrest the offending State Government to be held for trial by the Civilian Courts. And if it got bloody, the Federal Military would win that battle. You over estimate the support that your bunch of traitors would receive even in your own state. So far, two states have recently tried to vote to secede and both times the vote has failed. Even if it was successful, the Supreme Court would render the vote null and void. So it would boil down that it would either have to be forgotten about or it would have to be done using lethal force with your little bunch of traitors have no chance of winning.

Once more, you are trying to incite traitorous acts against the United States of America. You are no better than the pseudo Patriot idiot.

Not this shit again? He pulled the “you committed treason” shit on me on another thread. When asked to provide the link to my quote he cried like a stuck pig.

Paranoia runs deep in this one.

And you were doing the same rant. It's inciting treason, there cupcake. It's bordering on a Criminal Act. It's one step away from a criminal act. If any group were to follow up on those "Suggestions" then it would be a criminal act. Luckily, there aren't too many armed large group of nutcases that are willing to die to prove the points.

There are 3 of you that go about trying to incite an armed revolution. And the last time I checked, an armed revolution was Criminal. And THAT will get your guns seized for life. As well as a very long stay on the Feds and a new wife named Bubba.

It's the us government that has ignored the constitution. It is not legitimate and needs to be removed

Cool. Now answer the question, "So where does the Constitution give the Feds the power from stopping a State from leaving the Union?"

Precedence was set in 1861. Care to debate if that was wrong or right? A Civil War was fought to decide that.

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

No, you're a subjugated believer. None of that said states can be forced to remain in the union. That's clearly not consent of the governed, the basis of the constitution

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until invalidated by the Supreme Court, in deference to the will of the people.

The Federal government is not ‘ignoring’ the Constitution as long as it acts in accordance with the Founding Document’s case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And when government acts contrary to the Constitution, it’s the responsibility of the people to oppose such acts through either the political process or the judicial process by seeking relief in Federal court.

So that's what the SCOTUS is ruling based on? The SCOTUS is the will of the people? You are one, sick, puppy. The SCOTUS sure doesn't reflect my will, the will of Trump supporters, other Republicans, Libertarians, libertarians or anyone else but Marxists like you

 

[JoeB131]

So that's what the SCOTUS is ruling based on? The SCOTUS is the will of the people? You are one, sick, puppy. The SCOTUS sure doesn't reflect my will, the will of Trump supporters, other Republicans, Libertarians, libertarians or anyone else but Marxists like you

But yet you guys will cite Heller throwing out sensible local gun laws as the "wisdom" of the Supreme Court.

 

[kaz]

I suggest you look back at 1861. It was already tried and failed.

Cool. Now answer the question, "So where does the Constitution give the Feds the power from stopping a State from leaving the Union?"

Precedence was set in 1861. Care to debate if that was wrong or right? A Civil War was fought to decide that.

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ is un-Constitutional, having nothing to do with “states’ rights.” (Texas v. White (1869))

A state may leave the Union only with the consent of all the other states.

And beyond that is the unresolved issue of American citizens who reside in a state wishing to ‘leave’ who intend to remain American citizens.

Begging the question.

Constitution 101 for Clayton the Blow Hard. The Constitution lists Federal Powers. Just for morons like you who didn't grasp the concept that not granting the Federal government a power means the government doesn't have that power, they put in the 10th amendment saying that.

Then they bolstered it with the 9th amendment saying that not specifically enumerating the right withheld from the Federal government does not make it less of a right than the power in the Bill of rights and other amendments specifically withholding a power.

Clayton still doesn't grasp it.

Have you ever had an IQ test to see if you have one?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You know nothing about the Military Tradition, Culture, UCMJ, Oath that makes up the Military. If a state tries to break free and votes to do so, the entire State Government becomes enemies of the United States. And in the Oath that each and every service member has taken, they are to protect the Nation against enemies of the United States of America both Foreign and Domestic. I took that oath 5 times as many other did as well. In fact, every Military Person that ever served took the same exact oath. The US Congress would be well within their powers to send in the United States Military to Arrest the offending State Government to be held for trial by the Civilian Courts. And if it got bloody, the Federal Military would win that battle. You over estimate the support that your bunch of traitors would receive even in your own state. So far, two states have recently tried to vote to secede and both times the vote has failed. Even if it was successful, the Supreme Court would render the vote null and void. So it would boil down that it would either have to be forgotten about or it would have to be done using lethal force with your little bunch of traitors have no chance of winning.

Once more, you are trying to incite traitorous acts against the United States of America. You are no better than the pseudo Patriot idiot.

Not this shit again? He pulled the “you committed treason” shit on me on another thread. When asked to provide the link to my quote he cried like a stuck pig.

Paranoia runs deep in this one.

And you were doing the same rant. It's inciting treason, there cupcake. It's bordering on a Criminal Act. It's one step away from a criminal act. If any group were to follow up on those "Suggestions" then it would be a criminal act. Luckily, there aren't too many armed large group of nutcases that are willing to die to prove the points.

There are 3 of you that go about trying to incite an armed revolution. And the last time I checked, an armed revolution was Criminal. And THAT will get your guns seized for life. As well as a very long stay on the Feds and a new wife named Bubba.

It's the us government that has ignored the constitution. It is not legitimate and needs to be removed

Precedence was set in 1861. Care to debate if that was wrong or right? A Civil War was fought to decide that.

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

No, you're a subjugated believer. None of that said states can be forced to remain in the union. That's clearly not consent of the governed, the basis of the constitution

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until invalidated by the Supreme Court, in deference to the will of the people.

The Federal government is not ‘ignoring’ the Constitution as long as it acts in accordance with the Founding Document’s case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And when government acts contrary to the Constitution, it’s the responsibility of the people to oppose such acts through either the political process or the judicial process by seeking relief in Federal court.

So that's what the SCOTUS is ruling based on? The SCOTUS is the will of the people? You are one, sick, puppy. The SCOTUS sure doesn't reflect my will, the will of Trump supporters, other Republicans, Libertarians, libertarians or anyone else but Marxists like you

You speak for a lot of others. But before you do, I suggest you ask each and every one of them. Until you do, it's just your own personal opinion. SCOTUS doesn't make laws. They rule on the Constitutionality of the the suits that are in front of them. They can't make a single law. They might strike down a law but they can't make a law. Oftentimes, they will strike a law down and more or less shake their finger at congress for not doing their jobs.

 

[kaz]

Arming the Teachers is a bust. Most won't accept being armed. It's against their grain

No one is going to force anyone to be armed. Grow up and cut the stupid shit. Plenty of teachers have CC permits. Many of them have military and law enforcement experience. You don't need most people to be armed. You just need shooters not to know which ones are armed

I see you are using another generic term "Plenty of". Is that a seudonym for "Many" or how about "Few" or "Lots". Is there an exact number you can come up with with a governmental backup? It's like saying that MOST homes are armed when in reality only 37% of the households in the US have at least one gun. If you look at the number of guns out there you can make the determination that MOST or ALL have guns until you add in the factor that some of the households have multiple guns. And I doubt the over 300 million guns are in the hands of small children. Well, at least I hope not.

In reality, MOST Teachers are NOT armed nor will they elect to be armed. It goes against their very fiber. This is not an answer to the problem. Try again. But before you do, also present on who is going to pay to resolve the problem.

If the teachers/administrators in Parkland had CCs as the same rate as the general population, there would have been half a dozen to a dozen armed people in the school. The shooter would have had no idea what direction they were coming from

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Arming the Teachers is a bust. Most won't accept being armed. It's against their grain

No one is going to force anyone to be armed. Grow up and cut the stupid shit. Plenty of teachers have CC permits. Many of them have military and law enforcement experience. You don't need most people to be armed. You just need shooters not to know which ones are armed

I see you are using another generic term "Plenty of". Is that a seudonym for "Many" or how about "Few" or "Lots". Is there an exact number you can come up with with a governmental backup? It's like saying that MOST homes are armed when in reality only 37% of the households in the US have at least one gun. If you look at the number of guns out there you can make the determination that MOST or ALL have guns until you add in the factor that some of the households have multiple guns. And I doubt the over 300 million guns are in the hands of small children. Well, at least I hope not.

In reality, MOST Teachers are NOT armed nor will they elect to be armed. It goes against their very fiber. This is not an answer to the problem. Try again. But before you do, also present on who is going to pay to resolve the problem.

If the teachers/administrators in Parkland had CCs as the same rate as the general population, there would have been half a dozen to a dozen armed people in the school. The shooter would have had no idea what direction they were coming from

You really don't understand the culture of the Teaching Profession at all. Most of them are Pacifists. You can't force a Pacifist to be armed. And even if you could, you couldn't force them to use the weapon.

 

[kaz]

So that's what the SCOTUS is ruling based on? The SCOTUS is the will of the people? You are one, sick, puppy. The SCOTUS sure doesn't reflect my will, the will of Trump supporters, other Republicans, Libertarians, libertarians or anyone else but Marxists like you

But yet you guys will cite Heller throwing out sensible local gun laws as the "wisdom" of the Supreme Court.

Disarming honest citizens HELPS criminals, moron. It doesn't harm them

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[kaz]

Not this shit again? He pulled the “you committed treason” shit on me on another thread. When asked to provide the link to my quote he cried like a stuck pig.

Paranoia runs deep in this one.

And you were doing the same rant. It's inciting treason, there cupcake. It's bordering on a Criminal Act. It's one step away from a criminal act. If any group were to follow up on those "Suggestions" then it would be a criminal act. Luckily, there aren't too many armed large group of nutcases that are willing to die to prove the points.

There are 3 of you that go about trying to incite an armed revolution. And the last time I checked, an armed revolution was Criminal. And THAT will get your guns seized for life. As well as a very long stay on the Feds and a new wife named Bubba.

It's the us government that has ignored the constitution. It is not legitimate and needs to be removed

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

No, you're a subjugated believer. None of that said states can be forced to remain in the union. That's clearly not consent of the governed, the basis of the constitution

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until invalidated by the Supreme Court, in deference to the will of the people.

The Federal government is not ‘ignoring’ the Constitution as long as it acts in accordance with the Founding Document’s case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And when government acts contrary to the Constitution, it’s the responsibility of the people to oppose such acts through either the political process or the judicial process by seeking relief in Federal court.

So that's what the SCOTUS is ruling based on? The SCOTUS is the will of the people? You are one, sick, puppy. The SCOTUS sure doesn't reflect my will, the will of Trump supporters, other Republicans, Libertarians, libertarians or anyone else but Marxists like you

You speak for a lot of others. But before you do, I suggest you ask each and every one of them. Until you do, it's just your own personal opinion. SCOTUS doesn't make laws. They rule on the Constitutionality of the the suits that are in front of them. They can't make a single law. They might strike down a law but they can't make a law. Oftentimes, they will strike a law down and more or less shake their finger at congress for not doing their jobs.

So Clayton can say the SCOTUS actually speaks for the consent of the people of this country - Daryl ... nothing

I can say they don't - Daryl, OMG, you're speaking for other people!!!!

Dumb ass

And seriously, you're claiming that the groups I named are represented by one leftist ruling after another? They consent to that? Sure they do, Daryl. Hey, where's Larry and your other brother Daryl?

 

[Pop23]

And you were doing the same rant. It's inciting treason, there cupcake. It's bordering on a Criminal Act. It's one step away from a criminal act. If any group were to follow up on those "Suggestions" then it would be a criminal act. Luckily, there aren't too many armed large group of nutcases that are willing to die to prove the points.

There are 3 of you that go about trying to incite an armed revolution. And the last time I checked, an armed revolution was Criminal. And THAT will get your guns seized for life. As well as a very long stay on the Feds and a new wife named Bubba.

It's the us government that has ignored the constitution. It is not legitimate and needs to be removed

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

No, you're a subjugated believer. None of that said states can be forced to remain in the union. That's clearly not consent of the governed, the basis of the constitution

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until invalidated by the Supreme Court, in deference to the will of the people.

The Federal government is not ‘ignoring’ the Constitution as long as it acts in accordance with the Founding Document’s case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And when government acts contrary to the Constitution, it’s the responsibility of the people to oppose such acts through either the political process or the judicial process by seeking relief in Federal court.

So that's what the SCOTUS is ruling based on? The SCOTUS is the will of the people? You are one, sick, puppy. The SCOTUS sure doesn't reflect my will, the will of Trump supporters, other Republicans, Libertarians, libertarians or anyone else but Marxists like you

You speak for a lot of others. But before you do, I suggest you ask each and every one of them. Until you do, it's just your own personal opinion. SCOTUS doesn't make laws. They rule on the Constitutionality of the the suits that are in front of them. They can't make a single law. They might strike down a law but they can't make a law. Oftentimes, they will strike a law down and more or less shake their finger at congress for not doing their jobs.

So Clayton can say the SCOTUS actually speaks for the consent of the governed - Daryl ... nothing

I can say they don't - Daryl, OMG, you're speaking for other people!!!!

Dumb ass

And seriously, you're claiming that the groups I named are represented by one leftist ruling after another? They consent to that? Sure they do, Daryl. Hey, where's Larry and your other brother Daryl?

I put Duh-ryl on ignore. It’s like debating with a rock.

 

[kaz]

Arming the Teachers is a bust. Most won't accept being armed. It's against their grain

No one is going to force anyone to be armed. Grow up and cut the stupid shit. Plenty of teachers have CC permits. Many of them have military and law enforcement experience. You don't need most people to be armed. You just need shooters not to know which ones are armed

I see you are using another generic term "Plenty of". Is that a seudonym for "Many" or how about "Few" or "Lots". Is there an exact number you can come up with with a governmental backup? It's like saying that MOST homes are armed when in reality only 37% of the households in the US have at least one gun. If you look at the number of guns out there you can make the determination that MOST or ALL have guns until you add in the factor that some of the households have multiple guns. And I doubt the over 300 million guns are in the hands of small children. Well, at least I hope not.

In reality, MOST Teachers are NOT armed nor will they elect to be armed. It goes against their very fiber. This is not an answer to the problem. Try again. But before you do, also present on who is going to pay to resolve the problem.

If the teachers/administrators in Parkland had CCs as the same rate as the general population, there would have been half a dozen to a dozen armed people in the school. The shooter would have had no idea what direction they were coming from

You really don't understand the culture of the Teaching Profession at all. Most of them are Pacifists. You can't force a Pacifist to be armed. And even if you could, you couldn't force them to use the weapon.

Asked and answered. I wouldn't force any of them to be armed.

And didn't you just lecture me about not speaking for other people like Clayton did?

And you obviously only know blue inner city teachers

 

[Pilot1]

There are several school districts that already have a VOLUNTARY program that arms school employees, including teachers. It requires extensive training. Please point out where one of these school employees shot someone by mistake. If this had happen the media would be talking about it 24/7 with yet more calls to take guns from the law abiding.