- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A knife crime is not a "MASSACRE". Likewise your other links don't adequately address the issue. In general, semi-automatic weapons or bombs are involved in massacres. The weapon of choice has been semi-automatic weapons, and the near daily/weekly massacres that we're seeing in the US are a product of those. They need to be OUTLAWED, and it is perfectly within the framework of the constitution to do so.
A knife crime is not a "MASSACRE". Likewise your other links don't adequately address the issue. In general, semi-automatic weapons or bombs are involved in massacres. The weapon of choice has been semi-automatic weapons, and the near daily/weekly massacres that we're seeing in the US are a product of those. They need to be OUTLAWED, and it is perfectly within the framework of the constitution to do so.
you're lying. the supreme court has already ruled handguns cannot be banned and most of them are semi automatic.
A knife crime is not a "MASSACRE". Likewise your other links don't adequately address the issue. In general, semi-automatic weapons or bombs are involved in massacres. The weapon of choice has been semi-automatic weapons, and the near daily/weekly massacres that we're seeing in the US are a product of those. They need to be OUTLAWED, and it is perfectly within the framework of the constitution to do so.
You're probably closer than me. I just tossed out a tiny number to emphasize these people are making a huge deal out of a tiny sliver of the issue.1% ? I would have thought more like .05%
Yeah, I know. Facts and logic don't have much effect on dedicated gun grabbers.Bullseye you just went and pissed into the wind because these grabbers won't listen. Everything you said here is fact (also post 24) but sadly they listen only to each other and back-slap and high-five and go on their merry way.
Supreme Court decisions come and go, but the text of the Second Amendment remains the same:
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 intent of this statement is obvious, and states that a militia is necessary for the security of the United States, and that the citizens were that militia. The question that should be asked - Are armed citizens necessary for the military to keep the United States secure? - because that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Supreme Court decisions come and go, but the text of the Second Amendment remains the same:
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 intent of this statement is obvious, and states that a militia is necessary for the security of the United States, and that the citizens were that militia. The question that should be asked - Are armed citizens necessary for the military to keep the United States secure? - because that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
You don't believe Americans live in fear? You don't believe they are scared to death of Muslims, Mexicans, illegals, Russians, blacks, women, liberals/conservatives (depending on what side of the fence you are on) Iran, Iraq, how many years was the US terrified that the communists from Vietnam were going to take over the world? They are afraid of bacteria which they need Lysol or some such to destroy. They Take more antidepressant drugs than the rest of the world combined. Yellow alerts, red alerts, LGBTQP, anyone different. This is why there are so many protection guns in the US. Did you know there are shadows everywhere? Imagine all those shadows can get behind you in a well lighted room. Tell me Americans don't live in fear and have for probably have for closer to 100 years than 50. My country is of no consequence nor relevant to the answer.credible proof required for this theory. btw what country do you reside in?
No, it wasn't the intent. SCOTUS has already shown that the right pre-exists the Constitution, isn't dependent upon it for existence and protects an individual right. You're tilting at windmills.
And my point is that you can't outlaw semi-automatic weapons in the USA because there is already so many of them owned and the USA has way too much of a gun culture for your pipe dream to ever become a reality.
Not true. If that was the case, the text of the amendment would have covered it. One must go with the verbage of the actual amendment.
You don't believe Americans live in fear? You don't believe they are scared to death of Muslims, Mexicans, illegals, Russians, blacks, women, liberals/conservatives (depending on what side of the fence you are on) Iran, Iraq, how many years was the US terrified that the communists from Vietnam were going to take over the world? They are afraid of bacteria which they need Lysol or some such to destroy. They Take more antidepressant drugs than the rest of the world combined. Yellow alerts, red alerts, LGBTQP, anyone different. This is why there are so many protection guns in the US. Did you know there are shadows everywhere? Imagine all those shadows can get behind you in a well lighted room. Tell me Americans don't live in fear and have for probably have for closer to 100 years than 50. My country is of no consequence nor relevant to the answer.
We've been through this before. Australia had a very active gun culture also. And they were able to make their "Pipe Dream" work.
View attachment 67244649
In other words, you just made it up. thanks
your argument is of no consequence because its based on ignorance or disinformation. I am not afraid of any country. I find it funny you are afraid to tell us which country that is-its probably one that has massive issuesIn other words you don't believe it because you are probably an American and are afraid to admit what you really do know. Thanks for proving what I say is correct. And no my country is of no consequence to this answer either. You want to know because you may be afraid of the country you think I might be from. The funny thing is you know what I am saying to the truth.
You don't believe Americans live in fear? You don't believe they are scared to death of Muslims, Mexicans, illegals, Russians, blacks, women, liberals/conservatives (depending on what side of the fence you are on) Iran, Iraq, how many years was the US terrified that the communists from Vietnam were going to take over the world? They are afraid of bacteria which they need Lysol or some such to destroy. They Take more antidepressant drugs than the rest of the world combined. Yellow alerts, red alerts, LGBTQP, anyone different. This is why there are so many protection guns in the US. Did you know there are shadows everywhere? Imagine all those shadows can get behind you in a well lighted room. Tell me Americans don't live in fear and have for probably have for closer to 100 years than 50. My country is of no consequence nor relevant to the answer.
In other words you don't believe it because you are probably an American and are afraid to admit what you really do know. Thanks for proving what I say is correct. And no my country is of no consequence to this answer either. You want to know because you may be afraid of the country you think I might be from. The funny thing is you know what I am saying to the truth.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/294694-militia-only-interpretation-2nd-amendment.html
Given that Congress has complete control over the arms and organization of the militia under Article 1, Section 8, if the 2nd doesn't protect the arms of the people, it protects nothing. Why did the Framers even include it?
We've been through this before. Australia had a very active gun culture also. And they were able to make their "Pipe Dream" work.
View attachment 67244649
If you really believe it prove that those things I pointed out are wrong. How many military personal did the US lose protecting yourselves from the mighty Vietnam? Prove me wrong? You can't because I am correct.your argument is of no consequence because its based on ignorance or disinformation. I am not afraid of any country. I find it funny you are afraid to tell us which country that is-its probably one that has massive issues
If you really believe it prove that those things I pointed out are wrong. How many military personal did the US lose protecting yourselves from the mighty Vietnam? Prove me wrong? You can't because I am correct.
Of course the 2nd protected the rights of the people to carry firearms. That's exactly what I said. But that is only valid, if there is a militia requirement, per the first part of the statement. So a military need for armed citizens must be demonstrated, for this personal right to be true. Congressional powers to maintain and finance the military are unrelated to these personal rights, unless Congress (on advice from the Pentagon, etc.) decides to arm it's citizens, for Military support for a specific historical event (i.e. a military invasion of the country).
Of course the 2nd protected the rights of the people to carry firearms. That's exactly what I said. But that is only valid, if there is a militia requirement, per the first part of the statement. So a military need for armed citizens must be demonstrated, for this personal right to be true. Congressional powers to maintain and finance the military are unrelated to these personal rights, unless Congress (on advice from the Pentagon, etc.) decides to arm it's citizens, for Military support for a specific historical event (i.e. a military invasion of the country).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?