Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shootings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mass shootings

    Right now we live in a nightmarish society. But it’s OUR society; surely we can vote—or if necessary, violently shove—our way out of this ugly, intolerable situation! Only the most irresponsible, cowardly GENERATION would just let it continue. Those kids and other human brethren getting massacred out there are YOURS.

    Time to make it a number one voting booth priority; if your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate won’t put a stop to it, get rid of them until we have a Congress that will get the job done—including a veto override as necessary. If we can’t do that, we don’t deserve our Constitution.

    It’s really that simple, granted that it couldn’t just happen overnight: time to clarify and ultimately rectify that way out of date Second Amendment—and the hell with the NRA, which today struggles to justify private ownership of military weaponry whose only legitimate purpose is to allow combat soldiers and law enforcement personnel to kill as many bad guys as possible as quickly as possible—as distinguished from just making them available to anyone with enough money to buy one or as many more as they can afford, no questions asked.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • #2
    Sorry, I submitted the unedited copy; here’s the edited:

    Right now we live in a nightmarish society. But it’s OUR society; surely we can vote—or if necessary, violently shove—our way out of this ugly, intolerable situation! Only the most irresponsible, cowardly GENERATION would just let it continue. Those kids and other human brethren getting massacred out there are YOURS.

    Time to make it a number one voting booth priority; if your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate won’t put a stop to it, get rid of them until we have a Congress that will get the job done—including a veto override as necessary. If we can’t do that, we don’t deserve our Constitution.

    It’s really that simple, granted that it couldn’t just happen overnight: time to clarify and ultimately rectify that way- out-of-date Second Amendment—and to hell with the NRA, which today struggles to justify private ownership of military weaponry whose only legitimate purpose is to allow combat soldiers and law enforcement personnel to kill as many bad guys as possible as quickly as possible—as distinguished from just making them available to anyone with enough money to buy one or indeed as many as they can afford, no questions asked.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #3
      Ummm

      No


      Try again

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dml131427 View Post
        Sorry, I submitted the unedited copy; here’s the edited:

        Right now we live in a nightmarish society. But it’s OUR society; surely we can vote—or if necessary, violently shove—our way out of this ugly, intolerable situation! Only the most irresponsible, cowardly GENERATION would just let it continue. Those kids and other human brethren getting massacred out there are YOURS.

        Time to make it a number one voting booth priority; if your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate won’t put a stop to it, get rid of them until we have a Congress that will get the job done—including a veto override as necessary. If we can’t do that, we don’t deserve our Constitution.

        It’s really that simple, granted that it couldn’t just happen overnight: time to clarify and ultimately rectify that way- out-of-date Second Amendment—and to hell with the NRA, which today struggles to justify private ownership of military weaponry whose only legitimate purpose is to allow combat soldiers and law enforcement personnel to kill as many bad guys as possible as quickly as possible—as distinguished from just making them available to anyone with enough money to buy one or indeed as many as they can afford, no questions asked.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        I agree.... with all the drunk drivers causing accidents and death... we should look into a ban on driving cars to prevent this.... The more cars the more drunk drivers! Way more deaths than guns produce each year!!! Since, your about saving lives.... would this not be a better cause? Ban drivers to prevent drunk drivers!!! Let's ban cars to prevent drunk driving!!!!

        I'm with you Man!Ban those demon cars causing so much death!!!

        We need to be safe without those cars that can be used for drunk driving!!!

        START A MOVEMENT my friend!!! One that can save way more lives than banning Guns!!!!



        Paul
        From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
        From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
        From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
        Oh God of Truth, deliver us.

        ~ Ancient Prayer

        Comment


        • #5
          Drowning causes more deaths per year than assault weapons


          If you don't agree that we must ban water, you don't care about the children

          And you're racist

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
            Drowning cause more deaths per year than assault weapons


            If you don't agree that we must ban water, you don't care about the children

            And you're racist
            Agreed my friend! ban anything that can kill!

            Yet, your somehow still fixed on Guns as if they are different than simple water... Both sit there and do nothing harmful with out Humans making them do so... ? So... Did the evil water jump up and drown a person? Or did the person drown himself?

            Are you saying I'm racist for wanting to ban cars for drunk driving? If I was racist, would I not want to race them instead???

            Thank you for making my point even more clear...
            Paul
            From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
            From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
            From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
            Oh God of Truth, deliver us.

            ~ Ancient Prayer

            Comment


            • #7
              We must put a stop to those racist cars!

              Comment


              • #8
                First, what is the right to bear arms?

                Second, do you believe it is real? I.e., do you believe that the right to bear arms is a basic, fundamental, inherent, absolute, inalienable, inborn, natural, human right?

                Third, how serious are you about human rights? As a classical liberal, I am deathly serious about rights. "Give me liberty or give me death," is classically liberal. Abraham Lincoln was classically liberal. The Declaration of Independence is classically liberal.
                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                @Nee_Nihilo

                Comment


                • #9
                  It matters not what we believe... but what the law says...feelings don't count.

                  SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
                  certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
                  No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
                  District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
                  Held:
                  1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
                  (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
                  (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
                  (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
                  (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
                  (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
                  (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
                  2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
                  3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
                  478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
                  Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

                  McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

                  This is a very complicated topic... made much easier if you have lots of Cash and Lawyers to protect you from local goverments bent on taking your GOD given rights! SO... Your right to have a Gun is not given by the Government... (like a drivers license) it's protected by the Government!

                  But don't always count on it!
                  Paul
                  From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
                  From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
                  From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
                  Oh God of Truth, deliver us.

                  ~ Ancient Prayer

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Idolater View Post

                    Second, do you believe it is real? I.e., do you believe that the right to bear arms is a basic, fundamental, inherent, absolute, inalienable, inborn, natural, human right?

                    Jesus did

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X