ChrisL
Diamond Member
Wrong in so many ways it's not even funny. You don't understand your own rights! *points and laughs*
The founders certainly did not want the government to be the ones with the guns. Lol.Where was the armed security guard at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High?
- Thread starter Lakhota
- Start date
Wrong in so many ways it's not even funny. You don't understand your own rights! *points and laughs*
The founders certainly did not want the government to be the ones with the guns. Lol.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Hilarious.
Lol. This is the result of lack of education and lack of knowledge about our rights and this just goes directly against everything that the founders believed in. Go read the federalist papers and educate yourself, please.
Ricky LIbtardo
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2016
- 6,683
- 11,397
- 2,265
If I gather it up will you promise to leave and never come back? The mother clearly states he's committed assault. Willing to take the bait, petunia? Has to be backed up with Mod notification and arbitration. C'mon *****.
Well, I've got some news for you. You can throw that "well regulated militia" shit out the window.
The Heller decision from the SCOTUS states individuals have the right to own a fire arm for self defense.
A little education goes a long way, get some.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Whine and cry all you want. You are going to have a FIGHT on your hands. The NRA has the BEST lawyers and they will fight against you traitors to protect citizen's rights. 
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
Wrong in so many ways it's not even funny. You don't understand your own rights! *points and laughs*
in so many ways that you fail to articulate.
you are not special, snowflake.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Wrong in so many ways it's not even funny. You don't understand your own rights! *points and laughs*
in so many ways that you fail to articulate. you are not special, snowflake.
You wouldn't understand anyways. Go read the federalist papers. Maybe that could teach an OLD DOG some new tricks?
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,438
- 263,597
- 3,615
Whine and cry all you want. You are going to have a FIGHT on your hands. The NRA has the BEST lawyers and they will fight against you traitors to protect citizen's rights.
The NRA will win
They always do
Wait this thing out. In a few weeks nobody will care
Whatever petty gun regulations that are proposed will die in committee. Committees that are controlled by NRA dollars
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,721
- 13,434
- 2,280
I question whether he was there upon Cruz’s arrival on the campus. Rumor has it, down here, he was actually off site. And if you listen to the Sheriffs news conference he states “on arrival” the deputy proceeded to building 4, and then positioned outside that building where Cruz was shooting from.
Sun Sentinel-
“What I saw was a deputy arrive … take up a position and he never went in,”
Sun Sentinel-
“What I saw was a deputy arrive … take up a position and he never went in,”
Last edited:
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
Wrong in so many ways it's not even funny. You don't understand your own rights! *points and laughs*
in so many ways that you fail to articulate. you are not special, snowflake.
You wouldn't understand anyways. Go read the federalist papers. Maybe that could teach an OLD DOG some new tricks?
still failing to articulate ^
if you understood the federalist papers, you'd understand the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment, which you clearly do not.
well trained militia that is necessary to the security of a free state IS local law enforcement.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Anyways, one of your main gun control talking points (background checks) has failed miserably. Now you want legal and honest gun owners to bear the brunt of your fear and control issues. Too bad. We have nothing to do with these school shooting loons. We are SICK and TIRED of your crappy "solutions" which are nothing more than laws trying to control the actions of a psychopath. **** you.
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,721
- 13,434
- 2,280
That is not him.
You’re looking for some red in Broward? Here, I found one for ya...
MAGA, baby!
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Wrong in so many ways it's not even funny. You don't understand your own rights! *points and laughs*
in so many ways that you fail to articulate. you are not special, snowflake.
You wouldn't understand anyways. Go read the federalist papers. Maybe that could teach an OLD DOG some new tricks?
still failing to articulate ^
if you understood the federalist papers, you'd understand the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment, which you clearly do not.
well trained militia that is necessary to the security of a free state IS local law enforcement.
Wrong again. Go read the federalist papers. The founders made their feelings on the people keeping weapons quite clear.
There is no way you can twist their actual words to fit your silly narratives here. Lol.
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,721
- 13,434
- 2,280
Good. Because they have been advocating for better background checks since at least 2012, to include mental illness.
Whine and cry all you want. You are going to have a FIGHT on your hands. The NRA has the BEST lawyers and they will fight against you traitors to protect citizen's rights.
The NRA will win
They always do
Wait this thing out. In a few weeks nobody will care
Whatever petty gun regulations that are proposed will die in committee. Committees that are controlled by NRA dollars
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Introduction
The Second Amendment:
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 original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)
Introduction
The Second Amendment:
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 original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
Wrong in so many ways it's not even funny. You don't understand your own rights! *points and laughs*
in so many ways that you fail to articulate. you are not special, snowflake.
You wouldn't understand anyways. Go read the federalist papers. Maybe that could teach an OLD DOG some new tricks?
still failing to articulate ^
if you understood the federalist papers, you'd understand the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment, which you clearly do not.
well trained militia that is necessary to the security of a free state IS local law enforcement.
Wrong again. Go read the federalist papers. The founders made their feelings on the people keeping weapons quite clear.
words encompassing the history of state laws all over the country beg to differ with your silly twisted rants.
again, you aren't special, snowflake.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,438
- 263,597
- 3,615
Good. Because they have been advocating for better background checks since at least 2012.Whine and cry all you want. You are going to have a FIGHT on your hands. The NRA has the BEST lawyers and they will fight against you traitors to protect citizen's rights.
The NRA will win
They always do
Wait this thing out. In a few weeks nobody will care
Whatever petty gun regulations that are proposed will die in committee. Committees that are controlled by NRA dollars
Bullshit they have
The NRA is advocating background checks with enough loopholes to drive a truck through
No background checks on private sales, no checks at gun shows, no sharing of data bases, nobody on the list who has not been convicted in a court of law, you can't ban sales to suspected terrorists on the watch list
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Wrong in so many ways it's not even funny. You don't understand your own rights! *points and laughs*
in so many ways that you fail to articulate. you are not special, snowflake.
You wouldn't understand anyways. Go read the federalist papers. Maybe that could teach an OLD DOG some new tricks?
still failing to articulate ^
if you understood the federalist papers, you'd understand the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment, which you clearly do not.
well trained militia that is necessary to the security of a free state IS local law enforcement.
Wrong again. Go read the federalist papers. The founders made their feelings on the people keeping weapons quite clear.
words encompassing the history of state laws all over the country beg to differ with your silly twisted rants.
again, you aren't special, snowflake.
You are special though, special needs! Bwa ha ha!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Brazil Launches Mandatory Age Verification Law for Online Platforms
- Started by MayorQuimby
- Replies: 0
-
-
Liberal government appeals ruling against use of Emergencies Act to Supreme Court- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 2
-
