U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2019, 11:49 PM
 
12,666 posts, read 3,960,291 times
Reputation: 3832

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X View Post
With money, race doesn’t matter. For the elite, race only matters when the 99%.fight amongst one another..
Of course race doesn't matter when you're an elite and so rich you can price out even 5 average adults pooling their money together to buy or rent in a particular neighborhood. But if you're an American of average means living on one income, you have to live among the global dumping ground elites have turned America into.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2019, 12:29 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,188 posts, read 7,852,058 times
Reputation: 5807
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
That is not the interpretation that I think you want because that interpretation does not give anyone the right to carry concealed weapons. This was the big result of the Heller case decided by SCOTUS, that 2A goes beyond the militia purpose and gave 2A an interpretation that was aligned with the individual, not the militia. That point was hotly debated until Heller.
Actually, what the 2nd protects is the right to carry however you want. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly that.

What the founding fathers likely didn’t foresee is the willful ignorance that would lead to the loss of common sense and logic in society. In their time, education was a pursuit. People read the works of Plato and Socrates on purpose. People learned classical history on purpose, and they knew how the last great Republic fell.

Now, we offer education for free and people shun it. It’s not the education we should be teaching, granted, but it’s an education. And it’s available to literally everyone. People who actively refused to learn what little real history was offered to them are now making decisions that affect our future. For the record, I don’t blame the people who refused an education for their choice. I blame the governmental education system which became so focused on the technicalities that they forgot learning was supposed to be both fun and engaging. They now force history teachers to be corporate managers, ensuring their little classroom drones might learn the date of the fall of Rome, but not the cause of that fall. I guess you were right earlier. The founding fathers didn’t see this coming. They never could have foreseen the day when willfully ignorant people would willingly repeat history.

That doesn’t change either the existence or the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, though. Whether you like it or hate it, there is no way to pass a constitutional gun law. The Congress and Courts have been allowed to place restrictions on the 2nd. That doesn’t mean they ever had the power to.

For what it’s worth, I’m neither a prepper nor a conspiracy theorist (though I do have a few questions about the Illuminati ). I’m a constitutional conservative who understands and even supports the idea that some common sense restrictions for the benefit of society are, in fact, necessary. Threatening someone with a gun, for example, is something that can and should be legally restricted. Any aggressive act with a firearm can, should be, and is legally restricted. A restriction on firearms owned or carried is, from a strict interpretation of the Constitution, not legal.

The main issue I have with the anti gun crowd though is that historically, the restrictions which have been enacted as “reasonable” in America have been failures. Not merely on firearms, but on everything. Anything the government has banned in order to make us “safer” has failed. It didn’t work with alcohol, it doesn’t work with drugs, and it hasn’t worked with guns. Gun free zones haven’t reduced mass shootings. Magazine bans haven’t reduced mass shootings. Background checks haven’t reduced mass shootings. The given reason for the current round of calls for “something” to be done is the frequency of mass shootings, so I don’t even need to show you the numbers which prove frequency nearly tripled after Gun Free Zones were enacted, though there is a post buried somewhere on these forums in which I did. The question in my mind is not if something should be done, it’s what should be done. Rather than ignoring the fact that we have a Constitution which makes us unique from every single other country in existence, we need to be rationally approaching the issue and figuring out what will work. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m tired of the “throw a dart and see if it sticks” approach to the problem that is slowly eroding our entire Bill of Rights.

Gun control is a bandaid on a bullet wound, if you’ll forgive the pun. It won’t fix anything, it will just slow the bleeding. Unless you can completely ban firearms, you won’t stop “gun violence”. The 2nd prevents that from happening, so the only way to do it is to repeal the 2nd through the constitutional process. I keep hearing how powerful the Progressives are and how many people are behind them, so it shouldn’t be difficult to do. They should take a whack at the pesky Electoral College too, while they’re at it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 07:15 AM
 
7,001 posts, read 1,490,929 times
Reputation: 17338
I honestly don't understand people who want NO gun controls whatsoever.

If there are NO controls. anyone (even "highly suspect" terrorists) could buy any kind of weapon whatsoever with no waiting period, and any person angry at his/her spouse could just walk into the nearest sporting goods store and buy a gun and ammo, and ditto for any teenager angry at a teacher. I just don't understand that kind of thinking.

I do believe in a person's right to own a gun (or even more than one gun), but I simply don't think it is right to have absolutely no controls whatsoever.


P.S. Thanks to everyone who has responded so far, although I did not expect this to turn into another Second Amendment debate!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 08:26 AM
Status: "Censorship is for totalitarians" (set 16 hours ago)
 
40 posts, read 6,930 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
As it is written is ambiguous and is the source of all the arguing that goes on here and elsewhere. SCOTUS relied on experts in 18th century legal documents to unravel the meaning of the infamous comma that separates the first and second clauses of 2A. I am not arguing either side of what 2A means, but it is probably the worst written sentence in our Constitution.

I guess the founders didn't realize the level of stupidity we would be dealing with in the 20th and 21st centuries...I mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty easy to understand. A militia is PEOPLE if you want to call it a group of people fine. My family is a militia since we are a group of people. A group of friends,associates,people you barely know,hell even people who all own guns can ALL be a militia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 08:35 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,193 posts, read 6,444,107 times
Reputation: 11906
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
The following is what I think. What do YOU think?

EXTREME LIBERAL

- Welfare benefits for able-bodied and mentally-capable adults who refuse to work (includes UBI)
- Any kind of benefits to people here illegally, except for children under age 16 and emergency medical care
- Free college education for everyone who wants one (regardless of G.P.A. or SAT scores)

EXTREME CONSERVATIVE

- No gun controls whatsoever
- No abortions regardless of the reason
I'll say that, for the "extreme conservative," the position on abortion is NOT the norm even among extreme conservatives, who will generally support allowing abortions in the case where the life of the mother is at risk.

To add on to the list of extreme leftist positions:

-Supporting abortions up until birth and generally being against any abortion regulation; these positions are actually becoming more and more common among the left, which is evident when you hear various Dem presidential candidates stating that they do not support any regulation that would take choice away from the mother.

-Supporting open borders, which they do if they support (like every Dem presidential candidate who was on the debate stage some weeks ago did) not deporting anyone (no matter when they come) is their only "crime" was entering or staying in the country illegally.

-Supporting and condoning antisemitic and racist narratives and lines of attacks via Farrakhan (who has met with numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus, to include then Senator Barack Hussein Obama, despite his long history of racism and antisemitism), Ilhan Omar, Antifa (many leftists refuse to condemn this group, despite their history of aggression and violence), etc.

On the extreme right:

-No gun control whatsoever as it "infringes" on the right to keep and bear arms (such a definition of "infringe" has no support in the history of the 2nd Amendment or the laws that were on the books when the Amendment was adopted, and that the Framers in no way thought they were doing away with via passage of the Amendment)

-Condemnation of lifestyles--to include LGBT relationships and orientation--that have nothing to do with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
21,513 posts, read 22,080,212 times
Reputation: 33930
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
The following is what I think. What do YOU think?

EXTREME LIBERAL

- Welfare benefits for able-bodied and mentally-capable adults who refuse to work (includes UBI)
- Any kind of benefits to people here illegally, except for children under age 16 and emergency medical care
- Free college education for everyone who wants one (regardless of G.P.A. or SAT scores)

EXTREME CONSERVATIVE

- No gun controls whatsoever
- No abortions regardless of the reason
dang, I'm going to have to turn in my Extreme Librul Membership card
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 09:22 AM
 
3,371 posts, read 1,908,177 times
Reputation: 2468
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Not really. 2A was and is a subject of much debate by legal scholars. If it were so clearly written it wouldn't be debated so much. I am not trying to say any interpretation is right or wrong, just that it was horribly constructed. It is a mystery to me, and legal scholars, why the authors of the Constitution would word something so ambiguously. They were smart guys, they had to have known it would lead to arguments.
To find out what the true intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Why not refer to the authors of the Constitution and 2nd Amendment itself? Why is it such a mystery to you and legal scholars? Unless of course you and they never even bothered to find out? As it does not coincide with your interpretation of it.

Quote:
Samuel Adams: 
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." 
(Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

John Adams: 
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson: 
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
--Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." 
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" 
(Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Tench Coxe: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" 
(Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

Noah Webster, 1787: 
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." 
(Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" 
(Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." 
(Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" 
(Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

James Madison: "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, and enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."

“A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789

“As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Zachariah Johnson: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic…”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Planet Telex
4,729 posts, read 2,334,612 times
Reputation: 4437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl View Post
Don't agree with this either. I think this is what what the left wants you to think but then again they are calling Trump a white supremacist so I think this is another left strategy to harm GOPers.
How would white supremacy fall into the leftist camp? The extreme left wants open borders while cheering the "browning of America." Doesn't make much sense for white supremacists to be liberal. You'll have to place them into the right category for this very reason which probably explains why David Duke is a Republican.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 09:38 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
10,201 posts, read 8,181,248 times
Reputation: 4359
Left
all this SJW crazy.
Free college with no restrictions
Open borders (Yes I know many democrats are against it but take a look at the DSA platform. Many of whom make up the left end of the Dem party)
Wanting my daughter to dress for gym with boys who think they are girls. (Dont care what stall you crap in)

Right
Libertarian corporatocracy.
No enforcement against monopolies and oligopolies acting like monopolies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 09:46 AM
 
3,371 posts, read 1,908,177 times
Reputation: 2468
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
I honestly don't understand people who want NO gun controls whatsoever.

If there are NO controls. anyone (even "highly suspect" terrorists) could buy any kind of weapon whatsoever with no waiting period, and any person angry at his/her spouse could just walk into the nearest sporting goods store and buy a gun and ammo, and ditto for any teenager angry at a teacher. I just don't understand that kind of thinking.

I do believe in a person's right to own a gun (or even more than one gun), but I simply don't think it is right to have absolutely no controls whatsoever.


P.S. Thanks to everyone who has responded so far, although I did not expect this to turn into another Second Amendment debate!!
I'm fine with all the conditions to lawfully possess a firearm as listed on Federal Form 4473. Answering "Yes" to any of the questions other than question A would disqualify an individual from owning a firearm under federal law. As would answering "no" to question A. Other than that I want to be left the hell alone.

Quote:
A. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.)

B. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (See Instructions for Question 11.b.)

C. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.)

D. Are you a fugitive from justice? (See Instructions for Question 11.d.)

E. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

F. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)

G. Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

H. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?
(See Instructions for Question 11.h.)

I. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? (See Instructions for Question 11.i.) 12.a. Country of Citizenship: (Check/List more than one, if applicable. Nationals of the United States may check U.S.A.)
United States of America (U.S.A.) Other Country/Countries (Specify)

12.b. Have you ever renounced your United States citizenship?

12.c. Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States?

12.d.1. Are you an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa? (See Instructions for Question 12.d.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top