Florida School Shooting

[TheWall]

I imagine most gun-owners morals would prevent them from killing someone in this way.

It isnt about murder. It is about tyranny. No one wants to have to hurt anyone.

[Sparko]

eWFWxOf.jpg

[Cow Poke]

It's my reading of the national mood in light of the recent shootings.

You are certainly entitled to be wrong, even profoundly so.

It's my take on feelings of people in my locality, of conversations I've had with friends, family, students, and colleagues. It's my bet that in other urban areas, which face a more serious threat from gun crimes than rural areas, the mood is similar to that in Chicago, a growing anger mingled with desperation. So, yes, that is "my opinion." And that's what I use to justify "my opinion."

My opinion, and I think I can support it with actual facts, is that you are grossly misreading, therefore misrepresenting, the "national mood".

Don't live in such a narrow world that your knee-jerk response to a wildly different opinion is one of blank denial.

wow (and, yeah, I mean "wow")

There's not point to even having a discussion then.

Calm yourself, brother. You made an outrageous statement, and I simply asked what the basis of that might be.

[Cow Poke]

¹Before Poke and MM jump down my throat about my stupid opinion, let me qualify that by saying that I am not a constitutional scholar.

Quac, put your big boy pants back on... I was simply asking for whatever you thought might support your opinion. That's called "discussion".

[JimL]

Well like I said, "IF I wanted to split hairs"

But since when does the court always follow the constitution? They usually twist it around and "interpret" it in pretty strange ways.

The wording of the amendment does not give any qualifications. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says that "the people" which is clearly the all of the citizens of the USA, and it is not qualified to say "except felons or crazy people"
It says "Arms" not "arms except for banned classes"
and "shall not be infringed." That means not interfered with. Any restrictions or regulations are exactly that: infringing on the right.

It's very simple.

No, it's not as simple as that. The Constitution was written at a different time under different circumstances. The second amendment had to do with a well regulated militia which todays gun owners have no part in. Do you belong to a well regulated militia? The Founding fathers weren't psychics, they basically had only muskets on their mind, not bazooka's, tanks, nuclear missiles, or even AR 15's that could kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. Even the conservative's favorite Justice, Scalia, the strict constructionist, said that the 2nd amendment wasn't unlimited and that it was left to us to determine what those limitations should be.

[guacamole]

Well like I said, "IF I wanted to split hairs"

But since when does the court always follow the constitution? They usually twist it around and "interpret" it in pretty strange ways.

The wording of the amendment does not give any qualifications. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says that "the people" which is clearly the all of the citizens of the USA, and it is not qualified to say "except felons or crazy people"
It says "Arms" not "arms except for banned classes"
and "shall not be infringed." That means not interfered with. Any restrictions or regulations are exactly that: infringing on the right.

It's very simple.

If you carry that logic out to all of the other amendments, you end up with some problematic situations. The Bill of Rights, as written, isn't meant to be the end of the discussion.

As far as Constitutionally derived powers of the judiciary, . I mean if you reject the power of the Judiciary you aren't exactly in good Constitutional stead either.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Sparko]

No, it's not as simple as that.

pretty much yeah it is. Now there are parts of the constitution that will allow rights to be removed from criminals and that can be used to keep felons from having guns.

The Constitution was written at a different time under different circumstances.

This is a very moronic excuse. Using that we can just do away with the entire thing.

The second amendment had to do with a well regulated militia which todays gun owners have no part in.

The "well regulated militia" was just farmers and regular people who volunteered to fight the Brits. They were no army. And if you actually READ George Washington on the matter he was indeed speaking about the general populous owning guns. The founding fathers were not idiots.

Do you belong to a well regulated militia? The Founding fathers weren't psychics, they basically had only muskets on their mind, not bazooka's, tanks, nuclear missiles, or even AR 15's that could kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. Even the conservative's favorite Justice, Scalia, the strict constructionist, said that the 2nd amendment wasn't unlimited and that it was left to us to determine what those limitations should be.

The 2nd doesn't say anything about only the militia owning guns. The phrase about the militia is merely a reason given for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is not the only reason. and it doesn't mean only militias can own guns. And it never says anything about the type of arms. When it was written they had knives, swords, guns, machine guns, bombs, cannons, and more. I went over this with you in a previous thread where you made the same idiotic excuse. If they didn't want people to have those things, they would have put in an exception in the amendment. They didn't.

[guacamole]

You are certainly entitled to be wrong, even profoundly so.

So we all are.

My opinion, and I think I can support it with actual facts, is that you are grossly misreading, therefore misrepresenting, the "national mood".

okay.

wow (and, yeah, I mean "wow")

Quac, put your big boy pants back on... I was simply asking for whatever you thought might support your opinion. That's called "discussion".

I'm not upset. I was cracking a joke.

fwiw,
guacamole

[JimL]

pretty much yeah it is. Now there are parts of the constitution that will allow rights to be removed from criminals and that can be used to keep felons from having guns.



This is a very moronic excuse. Using that we can just do away with the entire thing.


The "well regulated militia" was just farmers and regular people who volunteered to fight the Brits. They were no army. And if you actually READ George Washington on the matter he was indeed speaking about the general populous owning guns. The founding fathers were not idiots.



The 2nd doesn't say anything about only the militia owning guns. The phrase about the militia is merely a reason given for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is not the only reason. and it doesn't mean only militias can own guns. And it never says anything about the type of arms. When it was written they had knives, swords, guns, machine guns, bombs, cannons, and more. I went over this with you in a previous thread where you made the same idiotic excuse. If they didn't want people to have those things, they would have put in an exception in the amendment. They didn't.

Yeah right Spark. Tell it to Scalia and W. Burger and every other Supreme court Justice, constitutional scholars all, who say you're wrong.

[Sparko]

Yeah right Spark. Tell it to Scalia and W. Burger and every other Supreme court Justice, constitutional scholars all, who say you're wrong.

If they said that then why are we having this discussion? They would have already banned guns and rifles. Yet amazingly they have not.

[Darth Executor]

I imagine most gun-owners morals would prevent them from killing someone in this way.

Disgusting that gun grabbers would rely on people's goodwill towards police to turn them into defenseless cattle. It bears repeating how much more I respect people like Hitler or Stalin than I do the average liberal. At least they had the decency to shoot you themselves and to your face.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not upset. I was cracking a joke.

fwiw,
guacamole

Then surround it with as man smilies as the board will allow!


OK, Guac - I like you. You're usually WAY wrong, but I still like you.

[guacamole]

Then surround it with as man smilies as the board will allow!


OK, Guac - I like you. You're usually WAY wrong, but I still like you.

[JimL]

If they said that then why are we having this discussion? They would have already banned guns and rifles. Yet amazingly they have not.

Well, they did say it, but they don't make law, that's up to us, or more specifically, up to our corrupt representation.

[Cow Poke]

y