Who thinks the shooting of the 11-year-old prankster was a good shoot?

[soylentgreen]

That's a bizarre wall of sentiment coming from someone who just got done questioning why we don't have more laws and regulations on guns.

Fair enough but I would point out that I said regulation and controls, not laws. Laws serve the purpose of telling us what is legal and what is not. But it is through regulations and controls that we can change the culture.

 

[soylentgreen]

You seem to miss the point of having (nationwide) protection of an individual’s rights, thus preventing them from becoming mere state, county or city government issued privileges.

And you miss the point that apparently that only counts when it is about rights affecting men. Apparently a woman right to decide what happens to her body is deemed simply a privilege given by the state. Why should guns be any different.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And you miss the point that apparently that only counts when it is about rights affecting men.

Nope, the 2A rights apply regardless of sex.

Apparently a woman right to decide what happens to her body is deemed simply a privilege given by the state. Why should guns be any different.

Nobody repealed a US Constitutional right allowing women to (conditionally) get abortions, since it never existed.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nope, the 2A rights apply regardless of sex.

While the right to an abortion only effects women. So no one cares if their rights are trampled on but when men might be effected then a different story.

Nobody repealed a US Constitutional right allowing women to (conditionally) get abortions, since it never existed.

, Roe v. Wade was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, which was based on the right to privacy. The ruling, established in 1973, was overturned by the Supreme Court in June 2022 in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion and returning the authority to regulate or ban abortion to individual states.

 

[ttwtt78640]

While the right to an abortion only effects women. So no one cares if their rights are trampled on but when men might be effected then a different story.

Nonsense and off topic.

Roe v. Wade was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, which was based on the right to privacy. The ruling, established in 1973, was overturned by the Supreme Court in June 2022 in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion and returning the authority to regulate or ban abortion to individual states.

Yep, the SCOTUS effectively gave itself the power to amend the US Constitution and later decided that was a bad idea.

 

[CLAX1911]

While the right to an abortion only effects women. So no one cares if their rights are trampled on but when men might be effected then a different story.

Nobody thinks right to abortion only affects women. The people that most effects are the ones yet to be born.

, Roe v. Wade was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, which was based on the right to privacy.

It did not establish a constitutional right to abortion. It established a right to privacy which then President Obama undermined by trying to create a closer to single-payer healthcare system. When you get tax dollars for these sorts of things you no longer have privacy.

The ruling, established in 1973, was overturned by the Supreme Court in June 2022 in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion and returning the authority to regulate or ban abortion to individual states.

Guess it wasn't constitutional after all

 

[CLAX1911]

True sometimes it is. But not when a boy plays a prank.

And it doesn't matter what you do there will always be these people and they will always do these things as they always have.

So giving up you're right to defend against it sounds stupid.

I doubt that. To many of your right act and speak as if they have the right to do as they please without concern for others.

Of you're right? I can't read this one out explain what my right is in this context.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nonsense and off topic.

The topic we were discussing is why the gun rights cannot be just state constitutional rights.

Yep, the SCOTUS effectively gave itself the power to amend the US Constitution and later decided that was a bad idea.

Your masters have spoken and all must obey is your reply. Not open to discussion any more because you got the answer you want and do not care what anyone else thinks. That is how tyranny works not how an open democracy works.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nobody thinks right to abortion only affects women. The people that most effects are the ones yet to be born.

And who do you think bears the job of giving birth?

It did not establish a constitutional right to abortion. It established a right to privacy which then President Obama undermined by trying to create a closer to single-payer healthcare system. When you get tax dollars for these sorts of things you no longer have privacy.

Guess it wasn't constitutional after all

The same argument can be used for guns. The word gun is not mentioned in the constitution. One has to make the assumption guns are included in the remark to bear arms. Same as one makes the assumption that abortion is part of the right to privacy.

 

[soylentgreen]

And it doesn't matter what you do there will always be these people and they will always do these things as they always have.

Now there is a ridiculous argument. It could have also been said there was always kings and here will always be a king. unless of course people choose to say enough is enough.

So giving up you're right to defend against it sounds stupid.

Yet many countrues have a right to self defense that does not include the right to kill as america has.

Of you're right? I can't read this one out explain what my right is in this context.

A belief you have a right is not the same as an actual right. and some americans have a belief they have a right to do as they please.

 

[mrjurrs]

I am not aware of anybody who thinks it was a good shot.

None that will admit it, but it was a brown kid so you know some just won't say it.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I think it was murder. But rather than get into the piddly-shit arguments on the other thread, if you think it was a good shoot, here's your chance to say so. Otherwise, stfu.

1. Buy a security camera or two.
2. Record everything that moves.
3. When "knocked up" as we used to call it, post a copy of their picture asking for ID's at the local grocery or any information booth.
4. Track them down at home and explain to their parents you will take civil action against THEM if it EVER happens again.
5. Sue every ****ing breathing individual whose kid rang your bell. They will at least have to pay your legal bill
6. As an alternative you can sue the kids family and put a lien on their house.

Oh and publish the videos any way you can

 

[CLAX1911]

None that will admit it,

So you know that while they're saying that it was bad to murder and 11 year old for bringing your doorbell they're actually inside thinking we need to murder more 11-year-olds.

I would recommend starting a 1-900 number for your psychic service cuz it's probably more lucrative than saying ridiculous nonsense on the internet.

but it was a brown kid so you know some just won't say it.

You people are the only ones that care about skin color. You're obsessed with it that's why it leaks into every single thought you have and you're just projecting your own racism on everyone else.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The topic we were discussing is why the gun rights cannot be just state constitutional rights.

You already admitted that would require repeal of the 2A.

Your masters have spoken and all must obey is your reply. Not open to discussion any more because you got the answer you want and do not care what anyone else thinks. That is how tyranny works not how an open democracy works.

Now you attempt to argue the opposite position: that individual rights shouldn’t be left to the states to decide.

 

[j brown's body]

Yep, the Constitution can be amended. Until then the people will keep their rights.

We could amend the Constitution to say the right of gun ownership is contingent upon maintaining a well-regulated militia.

 

[phoenix2020]

Yep, the Constitution can be amended. Until then the people will keep their rights.

That's not up to you. That's up to Trump.

He decides what the interpretation of the Constitution is, and every branch of federal law enforcement reports directly to him and will execute his orders. If he decides that trans people are henceforth prohibited from gun ownership, who exactly is going to stop him from enforcing that order?

 

[soylentgreen]

You already admitted that would require repeal of the 2A.

Yes! That should be no more of a problem than it was to repeal the rights of women to have an abortion to that of a state right.

Now you attempt to argue the opposite position: that individual rights shouldn’t be left to the states to decide.

Not at all. I am pointing out that just because scotus has made a ruling does not mean that ruling cannot be changed just as wade v roe was changed.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Yes! That should be no more of a problem than it was to repeal the rights of women to have an abortion to that of a state right.

There was no right to an abortion written into the constitution. It was made up by liberal justices.

Not at all. I am pointing out that just because scotus has made a ruling does not mean that ruling cannot be changed just as wade v roe was changed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There was no right to an abortion written into the constitution. It was made up by liberal justices.

Yep, that was done twice in both Roe and Casey. The odd part is that (in both cases) restrictions could be applied based on the level of fetal development, thus it was clearly ‘legislating from the bench’.

 

[soylentgreen]

There was no right to an abortion written into the constitution. It was made up by liberal justices.

The word gun also does not appear in the constitution. It was made up by people who want a right to kill.

 

[JMB1911A1]

The word gun also does not appear in the constitution. It was made up by people who want a right to kill.

ARMS. BTW, at the time that the U.S. Constitution was written, private citizens owned cannons and warships.

 

[ttwtt78640]

ARMS. BTW, at the time that the U.S. Constitution was written, private citizens owned cannons and warships.

Yet, despite the allegedly all important ‘militia clause’, some try to argue that the 2A doesn’t apply to ‘military style’ arms (like ‘assault rifles’).

 

[CLAX1911]

We could amend the Constitution to say the right of gun ownership is contingent upon maintaining a well-regulated militia.

It would mean the same thing how do you think you regulate a militia without firearms and ammunition?

 

[CLAX1911]

Now there is a ridiculous argument.

That controlling guns doesn't control thought?

Well I think it's pretty intelligent thing to say it's just stupid that I have to say it.

It could have also been said there was always kings and here will always be a king. unless of course people choose to say enough is enough.

You then we can say that but it won't be correct my statement is still correct. I noticed she didn't argue against it you just wet your pants over it.

Yet many countrues have a right to self defense that does not include the right to kill as america has.

So you're just committed to this conspiracy theory where you imagine that America has the right to kill and you can't be convinced that this insanity is not true?

A belief you have a right is not the same as an actual right.

Right there's a little more. The belief you have the right and the might to enforce it.

and some americans have a belief they have a right to do as they please.

Again the might to enforce it.

 

[CLAX1911]

And who do you think bears the job of giving birth?

The people who are pregnant. Just like the people who bear the job of keeping them safe feeding them and so forth you can't just kill your kid cuz you don't want to feed them.

The same argument can be used for guns.

All I would do is just show you 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.

Show me the amendment or the constitutional clause that says the right of the people to have abortions shall not be infringed.

The word gun is not mentioned in the constitution.

Is a gun a bearable arm?

One has to make the assumption guns are included in the remark to bear arms.

They are fireARMS.

If it's your argument that they're just fancy hole punchers then we shouldn't be on them at all cuz there's no reason they're not arms.

Same as one makes the assumption that abortion is part of the right to privacy.

No you're saying more along the lines of abortion is not terminating a pregnancy yet is that's what it is.