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.
It is not our guns, it is your sons. Crime comes from poverty and culture. Guns don't drive themselves. That the government abuses our First Amendment rights does not, and should not, be a model for the government to restrict our Second Amendment rights.
You anti-gun people will never live long enough to understand this sad fact. All you anti-gun people do is criticize guns. You need to wake up and realize that there are bad, bad people who are the ones that weild guns, shoot people, and kill people. The same type of bad, bad people also stab people to death, crack their skulls with baseball bats and tire irons, strangle people to death, beat people to death, and kick people to death.
Your obsession with one single method that bad, bad people use to kill other people, is sad and useless at stopping bad, bad people from killing.
Guess how to stop bad people having access to guns. Behind bars, in prison, serving long sentences. They also have no access to knives or clubs, and are in no proximity to prey on innocent victims.
I am asking this as a person who is a strong supporter of protecting all the amendments and the constitution itself. Even if it means voices I don't like get heard or people can do things in public that are not my cup of team. I am going out to the shooting range to practice with my latest hand gun I purchased last week.
But Jon Stewart in the attached video has a point. Governments are passing laws banning drag queen shows because they "might" harm children. Yet those same politicians vehemently protect the second amendment despite the fact that firearms kill more children than anything else. It is hypocrisy. Either its all about protecting children even if it infringes on some peoples constitutional rights or you adhere strictly to the constitution. I choose the latter.
Let parents decide what is best for their kids. Which means their child might be a victim of gun violence or might be influenced by a drag performer to go trans. As Ron Paul has said for years. You either have freedom or safety. You cannot have both at the same time.
Would you allow and invite the Westboro church to public schools and have story time session? I wouldn't in fact I would ban them from it. Well same with drag queen in public schools and such doing reading story time. Fact is the only LGBTQ that are being pushed by the far happen to be far left activists, there are plenty of LGBTQ who also don't think is appropriate and just want to live their lives like everybody else.
The far left aren't promoting this for LGBTQ rights as much as they are doing it for far left activism. Far left or far right activism should not be allowed in public schools, and now that there is a push back on it the far left are trying to push a narrative that it is book banning and censorship.
I disagree the pen is indeed mightier then the sword. People have picked up the sword time and time again because of what the pen has written. The pen has caused more bloodshed than all the mass shooters, crazies and gun accidents combined.
And the first amendment only applies to the Government.
What a breath of fresh air. Somebody is thinking here and gets it! Good for you.
What people also need to understand is that the 2nd Amendment is there just in case the Government decides it doesn’t like the 1st Amendment, or the others.
Drag shows are about sex and are disparaging of women, you're good with kids being exposed to it. that is you, not me. I don't care at all if there are drag shows ... for adults only, not children.
I am not for drag shows for children. I simply said the issue is overblown. And if we are talking draq queen story hour and all they are doing is reading to the kids its not a show. From what I have read its to show children that is ok to be different or LBGT or whatever. I think its a bad idea. But lots of bad ideas are legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee
A very recent fact and just edged out vehicle deaths. But you didn't care enough about vehicle deaths to previously speak out about them.
I am pro firearms. I am pro driving also. But I am not on here starting one anti trans thread after another either that Target is promoting LBGT stuff or drag queens are reading books to kids. . If one wants to go with saving children at all costs, guns are a bigger problem than trans activists. If its really about attacking people on the left and scoring political points well that is different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee
Show me where all of these people say that "trans activists are the greatest current threat to children"?
They aren't the greatest threat, but they are a threat and that threat is increasing.
I am going by the number of threads on here. There are usually at least a half dozen near the top of the POC list all the time lately. Many are certainly acting like its the biggest threat to America at the moment.
The entire statement does include the word regulated. Many ways one can interpret it. Infringe means to not allow it. Regulate means to have stipulations.
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 notion that the word "regulated" in the context of the 2A meant to have many laws/rules/conditions placed upon it, has been thoroughly debunked.
"Well regulated" meant "properly functioning".
All one needs is to look at the fact that there were no stipulations on the ownership of arms at the time of the 2A, and no historical accounts of the Founders attempting to enforce that interpretation, indeed, the public was not restricted in any way, and even owned artillery and battleships..
Maybe try using arguments that haven't been debunked ad nauseam.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
The notion that the word "regulated" in the context of the 2A meant to have many laws/rules/conditions placed upon it, has been thoroughly debunked.
"Well regulated" meant "properly functioning".
All one needs is to look at the fact that there were no stipulations on the ownership of arms at the time of the 2A, and no historical accounts of the Founders attempting to enforce that interpretation, indeed, the public was not restricted in any way, and even owned artillery and battleships..
Maybe try using arguments that haven't been debunked ad nauseam.
I'll take that. Yeah, ok, good interpretation of what "well-regulated militia" means.
Properly functioning militia.
Which is not how we're interpreting 2A now. We've decided 2A gives every lone individual the right to very powerful weapons, "properly functioning militia" intent be damned.
I'll take that. Yeah, ok, good interpretation of what "well-regulated militia" means.
Properly functioning militia.
Which is not how we're interpreting 2A now. We've decided 2A gives every lone individual the right to very powerful weapons, "properly functioning militia" intent be damned.
It's not a mandate to create a well regulated militia. It is the pinnacle reasoning statement for the belief that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302
It's not a mandate to create a well regulated militia. It is the pinnacle reasoning statement for the belief that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
I agree, it's not a mandate to "create" a well-regulated militia.
It's a mandate to continue the existing at that time well-regulated militia's access to weaponry. It's about what was keeping them secure at that time, and to continue to allow that well-regulated militia to function properly.
2A was NEVER intended to provide the absolute right to deadly weaponry to people with violent intent against their innocent fellow citizens.
Rightfully so, my ass. The 2nd Amendment actually states very clearly that there “shall not” be restrictions. The term “infringe” is defined as ”to limit or restrict” therefore as the language clearly states … “ …. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be (infringed) limited or restricted”.
So now that we have established that infringement is by definition, an action which limits or restricts …. what part of “Shall Not” do you believe suggests that it means anything other than NO ? The 2A does not say “… shall not be infringed, unless we have a good excuse to”.
You are conflating issues of codified legislative law, with Constitutional Rights and Protections, which are not remotely connected, or analogous to one another.
But the heart of the problem is pretty clear … if grown ass adults cannot even agree on what basic concepts like “NO” and “Shall Not” means, how the hell can we possibly agree on anything else?
Even children understand what NO means, so there should not be one breathing adult that doesn’t.
Actually, you are arguing the wrong reason for limitation on the Second Amendment. Your error is in not recognizing the meaning of the term "the people" as used in the Second Amendment. The term "the people" has been interpreted by the supreme court to mean law-abiding adult citizens who are not declared to be insane and who have not been convicted of a felony. It does NOT mean every single person on earth who is drawing a breath. Once you correctly understand the terminology, then there is no conflict between what the Second Amendment says and how it is lawfully applied.
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.
