You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.
As long as you continue to advocate keeping assault weapons designed to slaughter large numbers of people on the streets you are part of problem and have to accept part of the blame for the massacres.
The right tool is needed to do the right job without the right tool the job doesn’t get done.
If the government did not grant you rights, we would all be in trouble.
If we didn’t have a right to free speech when the crowd at the World Series chanted “lock him up, lock him up” Trump would have had the crowd arrested and jailed because there would be laws against criticize the government in anyway and you can bet Trump would enforce them.
"Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable [sic]," Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, Florida.
"We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."
The founding fathers were free to pick and choose what laws that would become the laws of America they were not bound in any way by the laws of the old country.
You have illusions of grandeur when you believe that a few men with guns could defeat the most powerful military on the planet. Talking about the impossible dream.
I have read the Federalist Papers.
What you are saying is that if an assault weapons fires in single shot mode it is not an assault weapon.
That is the only difference between a full-automatic and a semi-automatic, you can’t have it both ways, either the method of fire makes the difference or it doesn’t.
That is the only difference, if the selective fire switch malfunctions and will only fire in single shot mode would that assault weapon be legal on the street? It is the same as all semi-automatic assault weapons.
No emotionalism, just the facts. That is actually what is happening in America today.
The massacres are the problem not the gang killings.
That is exactly the point when a hand gun is used you only have a few people that are killed when assault weapon is used fifty people killed is not unheard of.
It the same old story, if a dog bites a man it is not news but if a man bites a dog it is news. Mass shootings have become so common with a few casualties they are no longer of any interest except local.
All of the suicides are omitted from that figure and they are also murders, they are just killing themselves.
VA, campus shooter chained all the doors before he started shooting, that is why he was able to kill so many people with a hand gun.
Of the top ten highest body count murders 80% were done with assault weapons and one done with a gun was so high because the doors were chained.
It does not play with the meaning of the word.
Murder is the killing of a human being. Suicides are a subset of murders.
It is both a bank robbery and a mas shooting.
A mass shooting is defined as a shooting where four or more people are wounded, this certainly qualifies. The Wikipedia article on the mass shooting shows
pictures of the semi-automatic of one of the assault weapons that was converted to full-automatic.
I am not familiar with Reddit so I cross checked the information on Wikipedia.
It is a full-automatic if it fires automatically.
The massacres in America were accelerating when the 1994 assault weapon went into effect and they went down while it was in effect.
After it expired massacres began accelerating again.
It does not mean all Mustangs have the same top speed, just as not all assault weapons have the same firing rate but they are still the same gun.
The only restriction on government would be that they can not completely ban guns but if you have an arm of any kind to bear the right is fully intact.
That is pretty plain, activist judges try and make laws instead of interpret the actual writing. That is what happened with the second amendment, judges ruled based on what they wanted to see instead confining their ruling to how the constitution was actually written. Some judges are not beyond the gun manufacturers bribes either.
What was actually ruled by the Supreme Court in Heller case is that government can control guns.
The gun manufactures won the battle but lost the war.
The Supreme Court ruled plaintiff could get a permit to carry a gun but government could control guns.
The gun manufacturers should have never taken that case to court.
To believe that you have a right to weapons of war derived from 2,000 years ago is nonsense.
If you believe that your right to weapons of war comes from English common law than you would be bound by the much more severe restriction on guns in England today.
You can't claim one without the other.
We fought the revolutionary war to free us from England and their laws.
The Bill of Rights does not forbid the government from anything it simply spells out the right of individuals. It can't do both.
The second amendment only grants the freedom to bear arms,
it forbids nothing.
you can't grant a right and take the freedom of the government to protect the population with the second amendment.
You never had a right to an ak-47.
The second amendment condition is met in full as long as you have any arm to bear.
As long as you have an arm to bear the intent of the second amendment is met.
The second amendment is extremely clear when it gives you "a right to bear arms."
The second amendment does not place limits on the power of government to control arms.
Activist judges try to do just as you are doing add things that are not in the writing.
Forty thousand deaths a year is one of the most compelling government interests today.
No militia is going to stop an invading Russian army or an atomic war anymore than an ant could stop us from stepping on it.
The semi-automatics assault weapons are the subject of the 1994 assault weapon ban. It is those weapons that we have tried to keep out of the hands of mass murderers for the last quarter century. That is what the whole discussion has been about not the automatic variation.
They created the first assault weapon in Germany in 1944 and others used that as a starting point to make faster and more deadly improvements.
You have to realize that 78% of American don't own a gun now and many gun owners also believe assault weapons should be banned.
Some gun owners actually cut their own assault weapons up.
As long as assault weapons are available at the corner gun store the massacre are going to be more frequent and kill more people.
There is no doubt something is going to be done it is just a question of how more will have to die. Ninety three percent of America want something done with guns and this is a super majority and they will prevail in the end.
There is an election next year and the senators and congressmen who have lined their pockets with the NRA's blood money won't be back. Many of the politicians stained with the NRA's blood money were beat in the last election. All these bills are blocked by crooked politicians on the NRA's payroll once they are gone things will change so fast your head will spin. As it is now one crooked politician can block a gun control bill from ever being voted on.
The second amendment only grants a right
and it in no way handcuffs the government hands to control dangerous and deadly weapons.
That is where the activist judges came in trying to make laws instead of deciding whether it was constitutional.
The writing has to govern and "a right to bear arms" is just that and nothing more.
Those five words is al you have and nothing more
and there is no possible way to construe those words into anything but "a right to bear arms"
which is met in full as long as you have an arm to bear.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever purpose."
The Supreme Court, Heller's Decision.
That pretty much sums it up. The Second Amendment does not give you the right "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever."
The most dangerous weapons in America today are the assault weapons by the extremely high body count mass murders.
No matter how many times you print that BS definition it won’t become reality.
America is flooded with assault weapons and that is why Colt stopped selling the AR-15.
One mass murderer demonstrated to the bartender "the typical mass murderer's stance" rotating from right to left. Aim is unimportant to mass murderers the number of bullets fired is the main thing. After the demonstration in the bar he went to an elementary school and did it for real.
According to Colt America is flooded with assault weapons.
That is correct that was the law of the land that banned assault weapons.
It seems even Colt would differ with you.
Assault weapons make mass murders possible.
Not according to the Supreme Court
the Supreme Court specifically ruled that you do not have the right to "keep and carry any weapon whatsoever." That is extremely clear.
You evidently didn't read the Heller Decision
because it says the exact opposite of what you believe.
Those were assault weapons used in those mass murders, in Texas, Florida and Ohio.
It is assault weapons they want banned because when there is a high body count mass murder you can bet there was an assault weapon used.
They should call the drills in school assault weapon drills.
You can clearly see that StG-44 was used as a model for future assault weapons.
Most people when they decide to kill with a knife don't have a guard for their knife.
It was the Congress that wrote the law and Republicans cast the deciding votes
on the 1994 assault weapon ban.
I can guess anything but that is just a guess and does not reflect reality.
There are actual police reports to get a number. Anybody that had to use their gun to protect themselves should report to the police. If they didn't kill the guy, he no doubt will return with an even bigger gun. If shots are fired the police investigate.
Reread the Heller Decision and you will see that statement is wrong.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
The Supreme Court states "Like most rights, the Second Amendment rights are not unlimited.
"The Second Amendments rights are not unlimited."
You can not transport a right across a country's border like you can a gun.
Do you actually believe that people of 2,600 ago were qualified to write the laws we must live under today?
Do you think that would preclude us from making laws we live under today?
Surely you understand that living conditions were very different 2600 years ago.
This would be dead hand control taken to an extreme. Would you like to live under the rest of the laws in effect at the time? No, you want to cherry pick the laws and say the rest don't apply.
The founding fathers decided what rights that would be granted to Americans.
The American Revolution was all about breaking away from the laws of the old world. The divine right of Kings was a right that the founding fathers refused to put in effect in America.
As Americans we want to decide what laws we live under and will not submit to the laws of King that been dead 25 centuries.
English Common Law goes back to 1066 so that is nearly a thousand years. Common law was in effect judges made law. The law was spread across England colonies. Previous decisions can be bought to attention of the judge in current case and he can decide how weigh to assign the precedent. This in no way establish a right to assault weapons.
Most people don't want to live under the laws written in 1066.
There is no such thing as a natural right
the only thing the government cannot do is take all the guns it must allow at least a few arms to bear. The second amendment still allows the government to decide what arms are allowed and court decision have backed this up.
Guns make it possible to kill themselves or others,
take the guns away and that number would be radically reduced.
If you have an "arm to bear" that statement has been met in full it has not been infringed in anyway. You want to claim more than you were given. The primary purpose of government is to create an orderly society.
Take all of the guns and that right has been infringed but that would be the only way to infringe it.
If I grant you a right that you have a right away across my property it does not deprive me of the property. That is the same way with the second amendment they grant you "a right to bear arms"
but in no way does it take away the government responsibility to protect the general public and control dangerous and deadly weapons.
Only the statement "a right to bear arms" is what cannot be infringed.
Activists judges read all kinds of things that are not there and believe it is up to them to make the law and this is what has happened with gun decisions. A judge that is not an activist will confine any decision to the exact words as written.
The second amendment protects only "a right to bear arms."
Assault weapons were also the most popular weapon for massacres and that is why they were banned. No other weapon comes even close to killing, 59 people or 50 people at time.
You do not get to make the definition of terms that is up to the legislature.
You can go after the government with a regular rifle after all the Revolutionary war was won with muskets.
Like the stand your ground law where you can tackle and kill teenagers and claim self-defense.
The 2016 election took out about 60 of the crooked politicians who were taking the NRA blood money. Many politicians have stopped taking the NRA blood money because polls show they will not be reelected.
They in no way infringe on "a right to bear arms."
What the public is waking up to is that they can ban assault weapons and stop the massacres.
Assault weapons were made for massacres.
If we didn't have a right to free speech when the crowd at the World Series chanted "lock him up, lock him up" Trump would have had the crowd arrested and jailed because there would be laws against criticize the government in anyway and you can bet Trump would enforce them.
The founding fathers were free to pick and choose what laws that would become the laws of America they were not bound in any way by the laws of the old country.
What you are saying is that if an assault weapons fires in single shot mode it is not an assault weapon.
if the selective fire switch malfunctions and will only fire in single shot mode would that assault weapon be legal on the street? It is the same as all semi-automatic assault weapons.
That is exactly the point when a hand gun is used you only have a few people that are killed when assault weapon is used fifty people killed is not unheard of.
VA, campus shooter chained all the doors before he started shooting, that is why he was able to kill so many people with a hand gun.
You make my point there were only ten killed with the shotgun and 38 compare that to Sandy Hook (26) and Parkland (17) done with assault weapons.
Of the top ten highest body count murders 80% were done with assault weapons and one done with a gun was so high because the doors were chained.
The Wikipedia article on the mass shooting shows pictures of the semi-automatic of one of the assault weapons that was converted to full-automatic.
I'm pretty sure the Thompson Machine gun was invented long before that.
The only restriction on government would be that they can not completely ban guns but if you have an arm of any kind to bear the right is fully intact.
The concept is like saying up is down.
The right to free speech does not mean the government cannot control speech when someone tries to use their free speech to incite a lynch mob.
In the same way the government can grant a right “to bear arms” without giving away the responsibility of the government to control dangerous and deadly weapons.
“Shall not be infringed” is modifier not a statement of the right. It can only modify the statement “a right to bear arms” it cannot change the meaning in any way. It can only modify it.
You can no longer go into the corner gun store and purchase a new automatic assault weapon. You can try and buy a used automatic assault weapon if you have a proper license and can find one for sale.
That is pretty plain, activist judges try and make laws instead of interpret the actual writing.
That is what happened with the second amendment, judges ruled based on what they wanted to see instead confining their ruling to how the constitution was actually written. Some judges are not beyond the gun manufacturers bribes either.
What was actually ruled by the Supreme Court in Heller case is that government can control guns.
The gun manufactures won the battle but lost the war.
The Supreme Court ruled plaintiff could get a permit to carry a gun but government could control guns. The gun manufacturers should have never taken that case to court.
So you believe in the bare minimum when it comes to Rights? Thankfully that isn't how Rights work. We don't get to have Rights that the govt thinks we should have or at the level they think we should have.
You are free to imagine anything or to believe that you know what the founding fathers actually “meant” but that is why things are written down.
Only an activist judge would rule based on that he believes he knows what the founding fathers intended.
That is exactly how it works a judge’s ruling needs must be confined to the actual writing.
There is a problem with your theory that your rights were granted by god. God is imaginary.
When you start relying on the supernatural sources you are in trouble. Thus, any god given rights are imaginary. In any country you have only the rights you have are the ones granted to you by that government.
In any country you have only the rights you have are the ones granted to you by that government.
If the religious got control of America, we would still be burning witches and believe that there is no such thing as mental illness that those people were possessed by demons and the only cure would be an exorcism.
At the time America was founded elected presidents were unheard of for the most part. The major countries, for example England, France, and Russia believed in the divine right of Kings.
You can’t be a true Christian and not believe in the divine right of kings.
Selling body parts is not the same as mandating that you cannot remove a parasitic growth from your body.
There is very little effort expended to stop suicides so it looks as there is an absolute right to suicide.
It is still murdering a human being. So, attempted murder would apply.
If the rights don’t come from the government would you rather believe they come from your imagination?
The decision on Roe vs Wade was based on the fourteenth amendment and stated women had a right to privacy.
If government had no right to oversee a woman’s medical procedures, they could not stop abortions.
I told my wife to pick up the results of my blood work but they would not release the results to her until I signed a release form. They will not even discuss anything on the phone about my medical condition with her. You have a right to privacy under the constitution.
Because abortions were illegal before that didn’t stop women from getting abortions.
They either used coat hangers or went to back alley abortionist many died from result of the illegal abortions. Making abortions illegal won’t stop abortions. Those deaths are documented history.
You are imagining thing again.
Can you imagine America with a tank parked in every drive way?
You think you can take on an army that crushed Germany and Japan in WWII. Maybe everybody should have a battleship and a B-52 bomber in their yard also to make it a fair fight.
And neither would most fetuses survive without a million dollars in medical care.
How much of that million-dollar hospital do you want to pay? Somebody has to pay it and it isn’t going to be that 18-year prostitute. So, should we double your taxes?
For sure a right-of-way is indeed a right to use property.
The basses of Roe vs Wade is based on the fourteenth amendment, the right to privacy. So, it is in the constitution. That ruling was 7 to 2.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Quote:
Quote:The 24,000 suicides were done with guns. Your figure is for al suicides, pills, hangings etc. and you can clearly see that guns accounted for more than half.
It still doesn't change the fact that killing yourself isn't the same as murder. More people kill themselves with guns, 60% than people kill each other with guns. We are also not in the top 10 of countries for suicide as other countries with stricter gun control have much higher rates of suicide.
Quote:Murder is the act of killing a human being a suicide is the act of killing a human being also.
Wrong, wrong wrong. Murder is the act of killing another human, suicide is the act of killing yourself.
Quote:Did you read your first definition? In your definition It say “especially killing another human being.” So, suicide would be included. What other case could you imagine of killing a human being.
Dude, the key word is "another human being", it says nothing about murdering yourself. Is this the lame attempts you will go to to try and be correct? It's pathetic to watch.
Quote:Getting rid of the second amendment would be impossible. Getting two thirds of the states to agree on anything.
We agree. That's why the left is going to nickle and dime the 2nd Amendment to death with restrictions. You have already proven this to be true with your earlier comments. So many regulations that it either becomes impossible to obtain a weapon via taxes, licenses and other such infringements.
Did you know the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most over turned court in the land, it is also the most leftist court in the land.
It doesn't matter if God exists or not, the point is we have natural Rights and one of those right is self-defense.
You seem a little thick, so I'll say it again.
The govt doesn't grant us our Rights, the Rights are naturally occurring, the purpose of the govt is to protect our Rights.
Everything you actually accuse the "right" of doing is the very things you would be doing. We already know you want to see the rich killed and I'm pretty sure you would add religious people to that list and just about anyone that is right of Stalin.
First off, a fetus isn't a parasitic growth, that is the language of hardcore abortion activists.
Right's don't come from govt, they exist as a matter of being people.
Those deaths have also been exaggerated to push for abortion rights.
Do you really think it is only [emphasis added] such people who have premature babies?
It's pathetic to watch.
Most of the violence in America is done by the right and it is getting worse every day.
The guy that threw acid in the face of a US citizen because he thought the guy was in the country illegally was a Trump follower.
It is a shame but mass murder is no longer newsworthy to get national coverage it has to be a massacre. Mass shootings are common everyday occurrences like the sun coming up.
So, all first grader should be armed with assault weapons to protect themselves.
That is the gun manufactures solutions to sell even more guns.
The schools that have put guns in school have already managed to shoot the children.
They did report on national news and even made a movie based on the shootout using assault weapons converted to fire automatically. I don’t know how you live in this country without knowing what is going on.
I can’t record all the news programs and send you the video. I am sure a lifetime member of the NRA would not lie about it.
If four or more people are shot it is a mass shooting, the North Hollywood shoot out qualifies. If a man shoots his family that is mass shooting. The one and only qualifier is that four people are shot.
That is the case you can’t not exclude any incident where four people are shot.
Bullets don’t have politics and assault weapons aren’t democrats or republicans. Massacres are about assault weapons.
The shooter was the aggressor in Florida, he did not live at the residence.
He had his gun he was looking for an incident where he could kill someone.
He brings a gun to a fist fight and when he gets hit, he kills a black teenager.
The newly passed stand your ground and kill law was why he was not convicted. I followed that court case every night on the news.
Do you really believe every time you got shoved down on your butt that you should kill the guy?
You have children do you really want your son killed if he gets in a fist fight?
Sorry, that was the case reported on the national news after the election and 60 gun manufactures stooges were voted out of office.
The republicans not only lost their majority in the house but the democrats ran up a large majority.
Read the book from the former head of the FBI who ran the investigation and you will know what actually happened not the Fox News lies.
They lied Trump into office by appealing to the undereducated.
The Republicans paid for the dossier during the Republican primary.
In September 2015, Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative political website, to do opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In spring 2016 when Trump had emerged as the probable Republican candidate, the Free Beacon stopped funding investigation into Trump.[28] From April 2016 through October 2016, the law firm Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, retained Fusion GPS to continue opposition research on Trump.[29][30][31] In June 2016, Fusion GPS retained Christopher Steele, a private British corporate intelligence investigator and former MI-6 agent, to research any Russian connections to Trump. Steele produced a 35-page series of uncorroborated memos from June to December 2016, which became the document known as the Donald Trump–Russia dossier.[29][32] Fusion GPS provided Marc Elias, the lead election lawyer for Perkins Coie, with the resulting dossier and other research documents.[30][31]
The firm is being sued for defamation by three Alfa-Bank owners named in the dossier as connected to Putin. German Khan, one of the litigants and one of Russia's wealthiest citizens, is the father-in-law of lawyer Alex van der Zwaan, who was charged in the Mueller probe for making false statements to the FBI.[33] He pleaded guilty to one count and in April 2018 was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a fine of $20,000.[34][35]
That Ukraine conspiracy theory has been completely discredited as a conspiracy theory that even a five-year old would not believe.
Self defense isn't a "right"
There are no "natural rights"
The most violent area's in the US are controlled by the Dems. Do you really think Chicago, Baltimore and other such cities are that filled with Republicans?
Don't you think it's funny I was mentioning Ukraine to you several months ago and the DNC connections...
Hunter Biden has zero experience in the oil industry and was being paid $50k a month.
Natural rights are the foundation of lawful government.
Self defense isn't a "right"
