AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, LD0506 said: So, we're actively arguing for the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to slaughter random teenagers........the blood of children, torrents, RIVERS of blood carry no weight. There is simply no argument to be made to even TRY to slow it down. Ok Got it No no, they aren’t arguing for the right to slaughter children, they are arguing for the right to retain the ability to slaughter children. Just now, twa said: The people are the means.....but feel free False. A means of murder is not the perpetrator, the means is the mechanism of the murder. Grammar is your fiend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Yanno, and this is the saddest indictment of all on the once great Country that was America when an atrocity such as this occurs, the reaction it elicits is a shrug of the shoulders, a 'how terrible. God rest.' And a 'But they'll NEVER learn and change so it'll only be a matter of time before the next one. Hail. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, AsburySkinsFan said: False. A means of murder is not the perpetrator, the means is the mechanism of the murder. Grammar is your fiend. Physics is yours, mechanism works why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: I’m fine with it remaining a right so long as the NRA stops forcing the narrative that it is absolute. And just a tinsy bit of honesty regarding the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written to maintain the citizen militia and that the necessity of a well regulated citizen militia has past with the establishment of a standing army. In. Your. Opinion. You keep forgetting that part. In order to form a militia, people had to own guns. In my reading, there is no requirement for the militia to be called to maintain that right. And you can’t be for keeping it a right AND for changing it from a right to a privilege. It can’t be both. You posted earlier you wanted it changed to a privilege and require a license. Edited February 16, 2018 by Popeman38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) I'll leave this here and say no more as this always turns ugly and appears impossible to have a reasoned debate. But it surely makes every last one of us think right? RIGHT? Hail. *Edit* That massacre was 22 years ago to be correct but still relevant as it's the deadliest ever mass shooting in British history. Edited February 16, 2018 by Gibbs Hog Heaven 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 23 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said: I think it's very clear that the purpose of protecting the right to own and bear arms in the second amendment was to maintain militias. Yeah, but you're only saying that because it says so. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Popeman38 said: That’s one way to interpret it. I can say that in order to have a militia, the people have the right to bear arms. Doesn’t make the militia portion a qualifier. In case you needed to stand up a militia, you needed people to own guns. If the militia is never called upon, the people still had the right to bear arms. The militia was the law enforcement and civil defense institution of the country during the time the constitution was written. Participation in the militia was compulsory in Virginia, at least, and probably the other states as well. You were actually required to own and maintain a musket as part of your militia duty, and if you couldn't afford to do so, the local governments gave you one. Militias were permanently organized, and during peacetime, their primary functions were to fight Indians, catch criminals and runaway slaves, and put down rebellions by poor whites and slaves. Militia service involved drilling on Sundays in central locations to maintain readiness and training, and to get out of militia service you had to pay fines/have an excuse, such as being elderly or lame. THAT is the duty/function/justification of a militia that the founders understood and took for granted. It had been a part of the social fabric of Anglo-American colonial life since the early 1600s. Preserving this institution and protecting its independence against the threat of tyranny is the reason they protected the right to keep and bear arms. If all of that seems anachronistic and irrelevant to a modern society with a highly professional volunteer military and police forces in every part of the country, that's because it is. That's why the pro-2nd amendment people don't talk about the militia part of the clause when they argue about the relevance of the right to keep and bear arms. They want to divorce original intent of maintaining a militia in protecting the right to keep and bear arms, and redefine it to mean that it's a protection of a right to own guns as toys, with very minimal restriction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: In. Your. Opinion. You keep forgetting that part. In order to form a militia, people had to own guns. In my reading, there is no requirement for the militia to be called to maintain that right. And you can’t be for keeping it a right AND for changing it from a right to a privilege. It can’t be both. You posted earlier you wanted it changed to a privilege and require a license. By your reading of the 2nd Amendment there is no requirement for the militia be called to maintain the right? That is pure NRA interpretation that pretends that the 2nd Amendment lacks half the words it contains. Basic grammar does not allow for the highlighted phrase to stand on its own, therefore it it integral to the second half of the sentence. NRA’s revisionist grammar be damned. And to your second point, I am for retaining the 2nd Amendment as penned in the Constitution, the interpretation of absolute right absent the connection to militia service that the NRA has shoved down our throats is a lie. And as long as that interpretation is the law then the 2nd Amendement needs to be reframed. Whether that means going to privilege or some other limiting language I don’t care, but we have to stop pretending thatbthe NRA’s reading is correct. There is a reason they always post just the second half. So lets be honest shall we. Edited February 16, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 I couldn’t click that retarded ass “there haven’t been thaaaat many school shootings this year” article because it’s behind a paywall. So I assume twa didn’t bother reading it either. One school shooting is too many. The more you talk about the minutiae of just how many school shootings have actually occurred, the further you get away from fixing anything. So get the **** out of here with that bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 4 hours ago, crabbypatty said: Yes, banning guns from everyone will probably save lives and make these types of terroristic attacks less frequent, but there's that pesky thing called the 2nd amendment and the slippery slope you start down once you start banning rights that this country was founded on. Not to mention the sheer number of guns that are out there already. Everyone likes to point to Australia, but they're a small Island (population wise) fairly isolated from the rest of the world. Drugs are illegal here, and they come over in record numbers... Bad guys will never follow the law. The only ones the laws hurt/inconvenience is the law abiding citizens. 1. I appreciate your story because that is a truly horrifying situation. 2. Only extreme people want a ban; most just want current laws to actually be enforced and acceptable levels of background checks 3. The 2nd Amendment refers to the right to bear arms - doesn't say where or when or how many or what type - it's 2018 not the 18th century and if we pass a law that give LEOs an extra two weeks to find some person who shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon and it means a "law abiding gun owner" has to wait a little bit longer to get their firearm so be it. To suggest that you (not you literally but people in general) wouldn't be willing to make that sacrifice is cold and incredibly selfish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, Springfield said: I couldn’t click that retarded ass “there haven’t been thaaaat many school shootings this year” article because it’s behind a paywall. So I assume twa didn’t bother reading it either. One school shooting is too many. The more you talk about the minutiae of just how many school shootings have actually occurred, the further you get away from fixing anything. So get the **** out of here with that bull****. Try using igcognito, and yes I read it....though I already knew the 18 was inflated enjoy your fake news then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Sticksboi05 said: 1. I appreciate your story because that is a truly horrifying situation. 2. Only extreme people want a ban; most just want current laws to actually be enforced and acceptable levels of background checks 3. The 2nd Amendment refers to the right to bear arms - doesn't say where or when or how many or what type - it's 2018 not the 18th century and if we pass a law that give LEOs an extra two weeks to find some person who shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon and it means a "law abiding gun owner" has to wait a little bit longer to get their firearm so be it. To suggest that you (not you literally but people in general) wouldn't be willing to make that sacrifice is cold and incredibly selfish. I cannot believe you quoted him and let slide “slippery slope you start down once you start banning rights that this country was founded on.” As if the right to literally own people wasn’t a right this proud nation was founded upon!! Edited February 16, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: I cannot believe you quoted him and let slide “slippery slope you start down once you start banning rights that this country was founded on.” As if the right to literally own people wasn’t a right this proud nation was founded upon!! I was going to but it's something I've grown tired of pointing out. Every day is a slippery slope with regard to people's rights in the country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 hour ago, tshile said: Just remember you guys feel that way when someone says they don't want to agree with increased gun control because it's just a play towards removing the 2nd amendment and taking all guns away. To them I say tough ****. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, twa said: Try using igcognito, and yes I read it....though I already knew the 18 was inflated enjoy your fake news then. So you think the 17 people who died is fake news because someone determined completely unrelated shootings weren’t actually school shootings by their measure? Get real. You're simply pushing the narrative to some absurd area so we don’t talk about the children were murdered by standards that you’re perfectly happy with. Children died. One child is too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Springfield said: So you think the 17 people who died is fake news because someone determined completely unrelated shootings weren’t actually school shootings by their measure? Get real. You're simply pushing the narrative to some absurd area so we don’t talk about the children were murdered by standards that you’re perfectly happy with. Children died. One child is too many. 20 years of school shootings...more than one child has died. But yeah, lets complain about the way we catgorize shootings on or near our nation’s schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Love how the constitution is open to your (stupid) interpretation but changing it...oh no **** no. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, Springfield said: So you think the 17 people who died is fake news because someone determined completely unrelated shootings weren’t actually school shootings by their measure? Get real. You're simply pushing the narrative to some absurd area so we don’t talk about the children were murdered by standards that you’re perfectly happy with. Children died. One child is too many. The posts on the 18 shootings are in a thread encompassing much more than the latest victims,one child is indeed too many....and lies and hyperbole impede progress I've suggested things to improve the situation rather than flailing about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Llevron said: Love how the constitution is open to your (stupid) interpretation but changing it...oh no **** no. It’s like the Catholic Church said at Vatican II, “we aren’t changing the texts and scriptures, we’re just reinterpreting them.” For me what’s wrong with saying, “Wow, that has really outlived it’s necessity, we should readdress it in our current context, like we did when we decided that owning people shouldn’t be a right anymore.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, twa said: The posts on the 18 shootings are in a thread encompassing much more than the latest victims,one child is indeed too many....and lies and hyperbole impede progress I've suggested things to improve the situation rather than flailing about All I’ve heard out of you is “arm the teachers”. No, that isn’t happening. Sorry. I’ve proposed numerous things that you say encroaches on the second amendment. Only one (the one where I said take all the guns away) actually encroaches as far as I’m concerned. So here we are, going back and forth about some stupid article you posted and nothing is being progressed. Republicans rejoice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 SCOTUS did address it in it's current context....that you don't like it doesn't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, Springfield said: All I’ve heard out of you is “arm the teachers”. I've endorsed background checks for gun shows and ban on all semi-automatics till 21 Must of missed it in all the noise and fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 18 minutes ago, Dan T. said: To them I say tough ****. most of what I see is "no one wants to ban guns" It's a minor point. I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now