[W:208] Yikes. It has begun.

[calamity]

And you would be wrong.

incorrect

 

[jaeger19]

Top 5 causes of wrecks:

1. Distracted Driving.
2. Driving Under the Influence.
3. Speed.
4. Reckless Driving.
5. Rain.

Yep.. how does licensing stop rain? etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

Top 5 causes of wrecks:

1. Distracted Driving.
2. Driving Under the Influence.
3. Speed.
4. Reckless Driving.
5. Rain.

yep, no premeditation though some could argue DUI is

 

[calamity]

You are kidding, right?

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.

 

[Grand Mal]

Yes.. just like people call black folks N....... for a reason
They use that term because they are ignorant... and blinded by hate and emotion.

Just like when you use the term "gun nut".
Or others use the term "ammosexual".

And others use the term bannerhoid.

 

[jaeger19]

incorrect

Nope. We have the origins of the right to bear arms. We know what the founders thought about that right. It was an individual right.. which why it was put alongside the other individual rights in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Luce]

Yep.. how does licensing stop rain? etc.

It doesn't. Period, stop, the end.

And in my experience, when you yank someone's license for the other causes, what you get is an unlicensed, uninsured driver.

 

[TurtleDude]

The right to vote is a constitutional right. Just like all the other innumerable and natural rights.

cite the clause in the constitution that says that. Those without constitutional education often confuse "a right to vote" with the amendments that prevent states from denying voting based on certain characteristics

 

[jaeger19]

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.

Bingo. The right of the people.. to bear arms.. in order to form a militia if necessary.. to secure a free state. One free from government tyranny.

 

[jaeger19]

It doesn't. Period, stop, the end.

And in my experience, when you yank someone's license for the other causes, what you get is an unlicensed, uninsured driver.

Bingo.. which proves my and Turtledudes point.

 

[Moot]

in a free society, it is tough to engage in the sort of stuff you apparently want. Right now, those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent cannot own or possess firearms.

The Parkland shooter was mentally ill....yet he had easy access to guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

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 right of the people refers to an individual right. this is settled in both the case law and in legal scholarship

 

[COTO]

White House announcement:

This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...GIChw8TvUuBWclIyKcNLgkFDY2Qe1gQuNhMNfUpqiq0cw

Is Beto still on track to be the Gun Grabber Czar?

It appears the federal laws won't matter in many (most?) states, but I suppose it's not reason enough for them to abandon the attempt.

 

[Luce]

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 explanatory clause does not invalidate the declarative clause.

Because X, Y.

Y is what is going to happen, X is WHY it is going to happen.

So " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the what and "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is WHY. The why doesn't modify the what,.

 

[jaeger19]

cite the clause in the constitution that says that. Those without constitutional education often confuse "a right to vote" with the amendments that prevent states from denying voting based on certain characteristics

Don;t need to. The constitutional doesn;t grant rights.. it protects them.

 

[Luce]

Bingo.. which proves my and Turtledudes point.

I wasn't disagreeing.

 

[Grand Mal]

real gun nuts are those who are upset that others own guns.

And real bannerhoids are those who own flags (banners) featuring a faulty asshole.

 

[Luce]

And real bannerhoids are those who own flags (banners) featuring a faulty asshole.

View attachment 67318461

That is a disgrace.

 

[dave8383]

I know, gun banners almost always are Democrats. those who support constitutional rights are generally people who don't vote for Democrats

Exactly... which is why we should STOP WASTING RESOURCES.. on gun control.. which has been proven to be completely ineffective.
And instead on things like researching mental illness.
Why people are violent
Susceptibility to violence extremism
ETC.
Focusing on the individual makes so much more sense.

So you're going to take the right to own a firearm away because someone might become violent according to a test, or research, of some kind? Wow.

 

[jaeger19]

The Parkland shooter was mentally ill....yet he had easy access to guns.

Bingo. The parkland shooter had a mental health history.. in fact a social worker was called out to his house to evaluate him as potentially being dangerous.
Nothing happened from that interview. Why are you not asking WHY? Why didn;t this person get the mental help that they needed so that they didn;t commit ANY violence?
If he had a mental breakdown.. and instead of using a firearm.. had set the school on fire..killing 300 kids? Would you be like "well.. its okay because he didn;t use a firearm"?
Come now.. stop being purposely obtuse.

 

[jaeger19]

So you're going to take the right to own a firearm away because someone might become violent according to a test, or research, of some kind? Wow.

No.
I believe in getting mentally ill people HELP..so that they don;t commit suicide or violence against anyone. Whether they use a firearm , a knife, a bottle of pills, a can of gas... is irrelevant.
Getting the person mental healthcare and PREVENTING violence and suicide is what makes sense.

Not YOUR premise.. which seems to be.. "hey.. if they commit violence but its not with a firearm.. its all good".

 

[dave8383]

No.
I believe in getting mentally ill people HELP..so that they don;t commit suicide or violence against anyone. Whether they use a firearm , a knife, a bottle of pills, a can of gas... is irrelevant.
Getting the person mental healthcare and PREVENTING violence and suicide is what makes sense.

Not YOUR premise.. which seems to be.. "hey.. if they commit violence but its not with a firearm.. its all good".

Oh, so you're going to go around deciding who needs to get help and that will stop gun violence? Please. Who decides? The 70 million who voted for a man who clearly needs help?

 

[calamity]

The explanatory clause does not invalidate the declarative clause.

Because X, Y.

Y is what is going to happen, X is WHY it is going to happen.

So " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the what and "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is WHY. The why doesn't modify the what,.

Actually, I was poking fun at that silly sentence with three commas. " 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."

In today's parlance it reads. " A well regulated Militia...shall not be infringed."

In the minds of gun rights folk it reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


But, what does it really mean? No one really knows. Again, it's the three commas. They screw up the statement something fierce.

One would need a PhD in Old English to even get the gist of what those extra two commas do to the meaning of that sentence. Some say Old English frequently punctuated oddly, inserting a comma between subjects and verbs to indicate a pause. But, that is not how commas are used today. A comma between subject and verb separates the subject from that particular verb. Thus, "A well regulated Militia...shall not be infringed."

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh, so you're going to go around deciding who needs to get help and that will stop gun violence? Please.

as opposed to those who insult others for owning guns or claiming that they should not be able to own modern weapons mainly because they voted differently than you did?

 

[Luce]

Actually, I was poking fun at that silly sentence with three commas. " 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."

In today's parlance it reads. " A well regulated Militia...shall not be infringed."

In the minds of gun rights folk it reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


But, what does it really mean? No one really knows. Again, it's the three commas. They screw up the statement something fierce.

It doesn't screw my reading of it up at all.