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.
The DEMAND for child porn/ underage sex slaves is very high in the US and the entire world actually.
As long as demand is very high, there will always be a supply. its not a problem they can prosecute away. No matter how many child molesters they arrest...the demand will remain HIGH.
There is a high demand because of weak punishments for pedophiles.
If pedophiles (convicted child rapists, molesters & pornographers) were executed, which they obviously should be, then demand would begin to cease.
There won't be any child porn when child pornographers are all hanging from the gallows!
Same with serial rapists, murderers, etc.
Well, you could just overturn SCOTUS ruling on that one just like Roe. There's actually nothing in the Constitution in and of itself that would explicitly prevent states from banning gun. In fact, from 1939 to 2008 that's exactly what the status of the issue. That is the collective rights theory the court reversed that precedence for more of a limited individual rights theory, that is the Constitution, to a limited respect, does guarantee individuals the right bear certain arms, but not other arms like sawed-offs are assault rifles, and not in all cases such as if you're mentally ill. Then in 2010 it was further interpreted much broader terms and under the 14th Amendment considered to be incorporated.
Which is kind of problematic when you think about it as it opens up a hornet's nest of issues. Seemingly there all sorts of things might fall afoul of "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." For example, the mentally ill, convicted felons, firearms in federal buildings, schools, and on airplanes. All of would seem to infringe upon the current 2010 interpretation whereas in the pre-2008 collective rights interpretation none of them would. Under collective rights it's more about the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." half. States could regulate firearms as, well, it was their business how they wanted to regulate their well regulated Militia. Abridging rights to carry firearms on planes wasn't really huge issue as you could always check them and honestly it's not like the founders thought about the need of the well regulated Militia to redeploy via commercial airplanes where they'd need access to their arms well en route.
The bolded above is such an absurd statement, it ought to be a crime punishable by the loss of citizenship, and timely deportation, or, handled in the more traditional way in which seditious traitors are dealt with, because as a citizen, you too are obligated to defend, rather than work to circumvent the Constitution. And such persons who do what you donare referred to in the constitution as “domestic enemies”.
As for the rest of that Marxist crap …. this foolishness about a “regulated militia” has already been settled, and is nothing more than more lies told by criminals, and believed by idiots. The term well regulated, translated into modern terms, simply means to be well equipped, and proficient in the use of fire arms, and to keep those firearms in good working order, and to maintain adequate supply of dry gun powder and load, so that they would be ready to participate in defending the community. The “militia” was simply the collective of the male citizens of the community, which is why the 2nd Amendment clearly identifies the right to keep and bear arms applies to “the people”.
Furthermore, every state are signatories to the constitution and are thusly bound by the constitution, and not one has the power to violate it by choice. And the bill of rights, for which the 2nd Amendment is included, are rights which both federal and state governments are required by law to protect.
Many of these “interpretations” you are referring are just more examples of illegal activism by leftist justices violating their oaths as Supreme Court Justices. And this is why there has been this long struggle to prevent leftists from dominating the court, and abusing their positions by rendering the constitution meaningless.
The way the 2nd Amendment has been violated highlights this upside down world some of you people live in where “shall not” magically becomes “can do if enough excuses are made”. Reminds me of when Bill Clinton said “it all depends on what “is” is.”
The real issue is very simple. If the government, federal or state can violate one portion of the constitution, then that renders the entire constitution meaningless. And the greater question is, what type of a mind would fight to destroy their own rights? Only the mind of a drooling moron would want to destroy his own rights.
There is a high demand because of weak punishments for pedophiles.
If pedophiles (convicted child rapists, molesters & pornographers) were executed, which they obviously should be, then demand would begin to cease.
There won't be any child porn when child pornographers are all hanging from the gallows!
Same with serial rapists, murderers, etc.
No, NO NO.
The demand is there despite what laws are in place or how severe the punishments are. LOL That has nothing to do with the 'demand'.
We have 'barely legal porn' today for petes sake, (do you think purveyors of barely legal porn are going to be content with 'barely legal' forever?)
What is 'barely legal' indicative of anyway? (the younger the better of course), DUH
I dont hear anyone trying to get barely legal porn banned or restricted today either? (even though its a gateway to child porn).
The demand is there despite what laws are in place or how severe the punishments are. LOL That has nothing to do with the 'demand'.
We have 'barely legal porn' today for petes sake, (do you think purveyors of barely legal porn are going to be content with 'barely legal' forever?)
What is 'barely legal' indicative of anyway? (the younger the better of course), DUH
I dont hear anyone trying to get barely legal porn banned or restricted today either? (even though its a gateway to child porn).
1. I personally think ALL pornography should be banned since it does way more harm than good.
2. 18 is a legal adult in the U.S., so anyone 18 and up can do pornography.
"Barely legal" refers to 18 yr olds -- that's very different from pedophilia, e.g. sex predators who target children, usually children 12 and under.
Sex crimes against those 12 and under should be punishable by death, IMHO.
The bolded above is such an absurd statement, it ought to be a crime punishable by the loss of citizenship, and timely deportation, or, handled in the more traditional way in which seditious traitors are dealt with, because as a citizen, you too are obligated to defend, rather than work to circumvent the Constitution. And such persons who do what you donare referred to in the constitution as “domestic enemies”.
As for the rest of that Marxist crap …. this foolishness about a “regulated militia” has already been settled, and is nothing more than more lies told by criminals, and believed by idiots. The term well regulated, translated into modern terms, simply means to be well equipped, and proficient in the use of fire arms, and to keep those firearms in good working order, and to maintain adequate supply of dry gun powder and load, so that they would be ready to participate in defending the community. The “militia” was simply the collective of the male citizens of the community, which is why the 2nd Amendment clearly identifies the right to keep and bear arms applies to “the people”.
Furthermore, every state are signatories to the constitution and are thusly bound by the constitution, and not one has the power to violate it by choice. And the bill of rights, for which the 2nd Amendment is included, are rights which both federal and state governments are required by law to protect.
Many of these “interpretations” you are referring are just more examples of illegal activism by leftist justices violating their oaths as Supreme Court Justices. And this is why there has been this long struggle to prevent leftists from dominating the court, and abusing their positions by rendering the constitution meaningless.
The way the 2nd Amendment has been violated highlights this upside down world some of you people live in where “shall not” magically becomes “can do if enough excuses are made”. Reminds me of when Bill Clinton said “it all depends on what “is” is.”
The real issue is very simple. If the government, federal or state can violate one portion of the constitution, then that renders the entire constitution meaningless. And the greater question is, what type of a mind would fight to destroy their own rights? Only the mind of a drooling moron would want to destroy his own rights.
I have no idea what your state constitution says. I'm talking about the Constitution. And yes, nothing in there explicitly preventing your state from taking away your guns. It's there by incorporation from the activist judges you so hate and only fairly recently from 2008 and 2010. And no, definitely every state did not sign your constitution and it really means nothing outside whatever your state is in.
None of that matters if the children are shot to death in school, with an adult's "toys," because the society puts more value on the "toys."
None of that matters with abortion, which kills 900,000 human lives each year in the US, 627 times the number of kids killed by guns, because certain segments of society have so devalued human life. (717 children have been killed by guns at the half-way through 2022.) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gu...ens/ar-AAYduRL
Interesting analysis of that fact... The same segment of society that advocates/promotes abortion (overwhelmingly Dem) is the same segment that commits the highest rate of homicides, by far. It is indeed about their core belief of devaluing human life.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 06-09-2022 at 10:43 AM..
I mean, that is what marksmanship is in one approach (just as judo is, in one approach, a method of physical training). The calming of the mind over the body to put rounds on target.
As far as your description goes, that's the M-16 you are talking about.....not the AR-15.
I shot my first one in 1967, thanks. I know what the nomenclature is. What you are talking about is nothing more than a projectile sport like basketball or hammer throw.
I shot my first one in 1967, thanks. I know what the nomenclature is. What you are talking about is nothing more than a projectile sport like basketball or hammer throw.
Can't throw worth a darn, I throw probably worse than a girl, when I throw a baseball it lands at my feet.....but I can certainly hit the reduced silhouette at 100 yards over iron sights in standing.
They aren't the same to me.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 06-09-2022 at 01:44 PM..
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.
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.
