What would you do with the second amendment?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our Republic. It is a simple legal error. We have a Ninth Amendment.

That has NOTHING to do with our discussion. You are changing the topic AGAIN, because you are an idiot who can't stay on point and you do not even understand your own arguments. They are likely not your own. You are parroting some other ****** who doesn't understand either.

 

[danielpalos]

Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our Republic. It is a simple legal error. We have a Ninth Amendment.

That has NOTHING to do with our discussion. You are changing the topic AGAIN, because you are an idiot who can't stay on point and you do not even understand your own arguments. They are likely not your own. You are parroting some other ****** who doesn't understand either.

The intent and purpose is clearly Expressed, not implied, in the first clause, not the second clause.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The intent and purpose is clearly Expressed, not implied, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Repetitive bullshit that is contrary to the Heller opinion.

You are an idiot cockroach Mexican illegal with no arguments. You just repeat shit over and over and over with no authority or sources. It's all bullshit.

You have been SOUNDLY defeated. I would give up and move back Mexico if I were you.

 

[danielpalos]

The intent and purpose is clearly Expressed, not implied, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Repetitive bullshit that is contrary to the Heller opinion.

You are an idiot cockroach Mexican illegal with no arguments. You just repeat shit over and over and over with no authority or sources. It's all bullshit.

You have been SOUNDLY defeated. I would give up and move back Mexico if I were you.

only in right wing fantasy.

Our federal Constitution is strictly one of Express powers; implied powers reside with the several and Sovereign, States of our Union.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

only in right wing fantasy.

Our federal Constitution is strictly one of Express powers; implied powers reside with the several and Sovereign, States of our Union.

More repetitive bullshit with no authority or sources.

 

[danielpalos]

We have the federal doctrine as our Constitution for civil life in our Republic.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have the federal doctrine as our Constitution for civil life in our Republic.

That is both wrong and nonsense. Nobody knows what the **** you are trying to say.

It is your repetitive bullshit AGAIN.

 

[Some Guy]

We have the federal doctrine as our Constitution for civil life in our Republic.

And it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is pretty simple stuff really.

 

[danielpalos]

We have the federal doctrine as our Constitution for civil life in our Republic.

And it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is pretty simple stuff really.

And, I would defer to your argument; but, the intent and purpose Expresses the intent and purpose for the second clause. it is not about, natural rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And, I would defer to your argument; but, the intent and purpose Expresses the intent and purpose for the second clause. it is not about, natural rights.

Heller disagrees with you.

End of Discussion.

 

[Some Guy]

The argument that the 2nd amendment only exists for the purpose of a militia get undermined by this...

The idea that the founding fathers, the ones who called government a necessary evil and who wrote the constitution with the sole intention of limiting government overrreach to their best extent possible, only wanted people to have guns in order to fight on behalf of the government... is just ******* stupid.

If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, then fine. Own it. Just say that you don't think people should have proper agency over their own protection and that they should put their safety entirely in the governments' hands. Don't try to make the argument that the constitution doesn't actually protect your ability to protect yourself with guns because it clearly does.

 

[danielpalos]

And, I would defer to your argument; but, the intent and purpose Expresses the intent and purpose for the second clause. it is not about, natural rights.

Heller disagrees with you.

End of Discussion.

A simple legal error; we have a Ninth Amendment. And a Tenth Amendment.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

This State clearly retains the police power as a States' sovereign right. Any implied powers must be in favor of the State.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Seems pretty straightforward. Let's follow that, to the letter. Thus, every U.S. citizen (man, woman, child), should have unfettered access to every and all arms, including fully automatic weapons of all calibers, R.P.G.'s, etc.. This also means that things such as being a released felon with a history of violent crimes does not disqualify you from owning whatever arm you desire. Same goes for U.S. citizens who are Muslim and have expressed sympathy and understanding for jihadists. Also, the mentally ill must have full access.

You just like to make shit up don't you.

What am I making up? If we are saying the 2nd is clear cut, then it is clear cut. The right to bear arm will NOT be infringed. Period. End of story. We cannot use the strict interpretation of the 2nd as rationale for not having to register guns, not being able to buy whatever guns we want, etc., but then ignore it when it comes to things like felons, the mentally ill, Muslim nutjobs, etc..

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A simple legal error; we have a Ninth Amendment.

How is it a legal error, dumbass?

The Supreme Court overruled your dumbass position.

The discussion is OVER. YOU LOST.

 

[danielpalos]

A simple legal error; we have a Ninth Amendment.

How is it a legal error, dumbass?

The Supreme Court overruled your dumbass position.

The discussion is OVER. YOU LOST.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

This State clearly retains the police power as a States' sovereign right. Any implied powers must be in favor of the State.

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

Shall not be infringe is pretty damn specific.

So is the "well regulated militia".

What is clear to you about it?

 

[kaz]

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?

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.

Could also translate that the States have a right to a Ham Sandwich and the Federal Government doesn't. This is just too vague.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Again, too vague. It can mean that EVERYONE except the Federal Government (when the 10th is applied) must have the right to that Ham Sandwich.

it all depends on whom is doing the interpreting as to the meaning. While it was well written for 1790, it isn't today. It needs to be clarified. And since Congress won't or is incapable, then the Supreme Court has that job.

Actually they are crystal clear to people with higher literacy levels than you evidently possess

Is that the best you can do? Are you telling me that you are about to put an entire industry of Legal Scholars out of work? If only you could.

Yes, they are incompetent, leftist idiots. The 10th says that if the power is not ENUMERATED (a vocabulary word for you to look up) in the Constitution, than it is specifically a power denied the Federal government.

What about that is unclear to you?

And the 9th says that makes them no less of rights than powers specifically withheld from the Federal government in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

What about that is unclear to you?

Most of what the Federal government does now is Unconstitutional

Then take it up in court. Or take it up in the States. If it's true you do have options. That is, if you are right.

Or you can just take up our time and ***** about it.

Oh stop whining. And yeah, go to the criminals and tell them to decide. Tell me about some times that worked for you

 

[kaz]

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

I live in a sold RED area. This has already been addressed here. And it's legal for our teachers to be armed. But they have voted it down at the teachers level. I don't speak for them. They have spoken for themselves.

Your strawman argument is just that.

You moved the goalposts. You kept arguing that none of the teachers want to carry guns. Now it's majority vote. We don't need anywhere near a majority to carry guns. 5-10% is plenty. Again, not everyone needs to be armed. Just the shooter can't know which ones

There were plenty of armed citizens armed in the crowd in Vegas. That only caused confusion for the cops. it didn't even slow the shooter down. He found a way around all that. It didn't even bother him. What did bother him was a bunch of cops breaking down the doors.

Nope, didn't move the goalposts one bit. The Teachers can elect not to carry if they vote it down themselves. That is what happened here. We had two false alarms and one real here. The community treated all 3 exactly the same. The Community went vigilent,. the cops stormed the school and the schools went into lockdown. 2 turned out to be false alarms. But one was real. The 17 year old had his rain coat on and was walking towards the school gate. One of the people that lives on that street saw him and called the cops. The alert went out. He never had the chance to make it to the front gate. He was surrounded, put to the ground. Under the coat was an AR-15 with a 20 round mag and 2 more 20 round mags all belonging to his Father. Being that he is 17, his name was never released and it was just a short blurb in the news. But he won't see daylight until he is at least 21. What is sad, the gun will be if not already returned to his father. The community handled it right. You can't have a school shooting if the community won't allow it.

That cop that shot his own leg wasn't in the wrong. He was in the right. Just a bit clumsy. He reacted as if it were real. And that is what it takes to stop school shootings. If all communities, cops and schools reacted like that we wouldn't have any school shootings. And arming the Teachers just allows accidents to happen. If a cop can accidently shoot his own leg then a Teacher can accidently shoot a student.

You gun nutters think more guns are the answer when in fact a better way is a change in the way society operates. If the potential shooters thinks that there is no way that he can even get into the school in the first place then he won't even try. There are easier targets out there.

Disarming victims has worked so well ...

Link on your Vegas claim please

 

[PredFan]

Seems pretty straightforward. Let's follow that, to the letter. Thus, every U.S. citizen (man, woman, child), should have unfettered access to every and all arms, including fully automatic weapons of all calibers, R.P.G.'s, etc.. This also means that things such as being a released felon with a history of violent crimes does not disqualify you from owning whatever arm you desire. Same goes for U.S. citizens who are Muslim and have expressed sympathy and understanding for jihadists. Also, the mentally ill must have full access.

You just like to make shit up don't you.

What am I making up? If we are saying the 2nd is clear cut, then it is clear cut. The right to bear arm will NOT be infringed. Period. End of story. We cannot use the strict interpretation of the 2nd as rationale for not having to register guns, not being able to buy whatever guns we want, etc., but then ignore it when it comes to things like felons, the mentally ill, Muslim nutjobs, etc..

RPGs? Felons with violent crime history, what you are making up is the zero sum game. No one is proposing that those things happen and don't give me any of that childish nonsense that I have to have one or the other. it's a lie. Period.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

I live in a sold RED area. This has already been addressed here. And it's legal for our teachers to be armed. But they have voted it down at the teachers level. I don't speak for them. They have spoken for themselves.

Your strawman argument is just that.

You moved the goalposts. You kept arguing that none of the teachers want to carry guns. Now it's majority vote. We don't need anywhere near a majority to carry guns. 5-10% is plenty. Again, not everyone needs to be armed. Just the shooter can't know which ones

There were plenty of armed citizens armed in the crowd in Vegas. That only caused confusion for the cops. it didn't even slow the shooter down. He found a way around all that. It didn't even bother him. What did bother him was a bunch of cops breaking down the doors.

Nope, didn't move the goalposts one bit. The Teachers can elect not to carry if they vote it down themselves. That is what happened here. We had two false alarms and one real here. The community treated all 3 exactly the same. The Community went vigilent,. the cops stormed the school and the schools went into lockdown. 2 turned out to be false alarms. But one was real. The 17 year old had his rain coat on and was walking towards the school gate. One of the people that lives on that street saw him and called the cops. The alert went out. He never had the chance to make it to the front gate. He was surrounded, put to the ground. Under the coat was an AR-15 with a 20 round mag and 2 more 20 round mags all belonging to his Father. Being that he is 17, his name was never released and it was just a short blurb in the news. But he won't see daylight until he is at least 21. What is sad, the gun will be if not already returned to his father. The community handled it right. You can't have a school shooting if the community won't allow it.

That cop that shot his own leg wasn't in the wrong. He was in the right. Just a bit clumsy. He reacted as if it were real. And that is what it takes to stop school shootings. If all communities, cops and schools reacted like that we wouldn't have any school shootings. And arming the Teachers just allows accidents to happen. If a cop can accidently shoot his own leg then a Teacher can accidently shoot a student.

You gun nutters think more guns are the answer when in fact a better way is a change in the way society operates. If the potential shooters thinks that there is no way that he can even get into the school in the first place then he won't even try. There are easier targets out there.

Disarming victims has worked so well ...

Link on your Vegas claim please

Students have already been hurt by accidental firearm discharges. The count for 2017 for students killed or wounded by accidental discharges is 57. About as many as the total of the Mass Shootings. Increase the number of firearms and you increase the number of accidental discharges. At that point, why bother doing a Mass Shooting at a school when they'll be doing it to themselves. Guess the mass shooters will just have to go back to shooting up theaters.