The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

In this world there are mechanics tools, carpenter’s tools, and mass murderer’s tools.

Assault weapons were designed for massacres, if that is not evil, I don’t know what is. The death toll is rising with every gun sold.

That FBI study was of 41 school shootings in the last 10 years.

The information the FBI found is being used to help school systems deal with future mass shootings.

All rights are limited and they are limited for a reason. When the exercise of one person rights violates another person there is a conflict and that conflict must be resolved. The possession of assault weapons violates the right of others to life and liberty.

That is not statistic it is guesstimate.

You no doubt that some CDC employees who are NRA members and were paid by the gun manufactures came up. They were sitting around the office one day and one says to the other I wonder how many times guns are used for protection? One said 500,000 and the other said 2.5 million. That is why there is such a wide range. Maybe they just used a dart board with numbers on it.

She could have shot both with a pistol. What were the men there to steal? The AR-15 no doubt.

The thieves were there to steal the AR-15 that’s why you don’t post a link to story.

If the thieves were busy beating her husband it would be easy for her shoot both of them or hold them at gun point until the police arrived.

They were busy beating her husband according to you.

It is easy to shoot somebody when they are busy doing something else.

If they were there to kill them, they would have blown them away as soon as they opened the door. They were there for another reason.

If you are pistol whipping someone you can’t point the gun at somebody else at the same time.

Most of the break ins around here are to steal guns.

A hard blow on the head with a baseball bat will stop any man. You started off with only one armed man to start with, will it be three tomorrow and four the next day? Will the woman be in a wheelchair next?

The supreme court has ruled otherwise and ruled that the second amendment does not give you a right to “any weapon whatsoever of any purpose whatsoever.” So, government has reserved the right to do exactly that and that is exactly what going to happen.

One thing about it whether you like the supreme court’s decision or not they are binding. The decision you are referring to is a lower court decision.

According to you, you have no rights only a bill of restrictions.

You can’t have both, you can either have a bill of rights or a bill of restrictions.

You could make terrorist threats to burn schools down because you have freedom of speech. You could even call Trump’s wife a whore.

A right has to come from somewhere.

Do you think they are written down on a cave wall somewhere?

When a government is established it decides what rights the citizens will have not some cave man 10,000 years ago. That is exactly why the founding fathers built a procedure to change the constitution so that it can be changed. If the states decided to change the constitution and eliminate the second amendment what supernatural creature would show up to prevent it. If you think your rights come from a different source there has to be somebody to enforce it. Who could override the government?

The detailed question in the census long form violate the right to privacy but like all other rights it has limits.

Trump pushed the lock her up chants at every one of his rallies but as usual he can dish it out but can’t take.

When the world series crowd started chanting “Lock him up, Lock him up” he could take it. It sent him to the doctor office.

Trump lost the popular vote, most Americans voted against him.

Trump only got in because of the slave owners compromise.

Trump does not free speech.

He sued the paper that said his wife was a prostitute and won. The paper was no doubt telling the truth and it wasn’t FBI or LEO.

Romney pays far lower rate than the middle class and he was lying when he said the lower 50% of Americans pay no tax.

Your whole post is just a repeat of one of your prior post. I am going to get some sleep tonight.

The FF were about limited govt power and maximum Liberty for the people.

How does the practice of slavery illustrate the principle of "maximum liberty"? They were about selective liberty that applied solely to free, white, property-owning males.

The AR-15 has been documented to chamber rounds at a 900 round per minute rate.

What we think of as America now was under control of the Spanish and French also.

There is no such thing as Inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence the actual word used was unalienable rights.

Inalienable vs. unalienable
English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form. Unalienable mainly appears in quotes of or references to the Declaration. Inalienable prevails everywhere else.

Webster’s describes inalienable rights as a “myth” in one example sentence. You are right, If the right ever gets control of the government there would be no rights.

The supreme court has affirmed that all rights have limits on numerous occasions.

People have a right to go to court if they feel their rights have been violated by the government but remember the supreme court has already ruled.

The government has much more to do than protecting rights including protecting the homeland.

To start with you did not include the 24,000 suicides many of which are done with shot guns.

What we have to deal with are massacres that are killing more people all the time.

Las Vegas just shows us what is possible. There are thousands of gun nuts who study every mistake a mass murderer makes in hopes of setting a new record.

To you it is an acceptable cost, if there are a 160-school shooting their deaths are worth it to you so you can go to the gun range and target shoot.

The second amendment limits right to an arm to bear, period. That’s it, it does not give you anymore, then it says. That is also the supreme court says also.

The government has protected the right to bear an arm.

For rights to come from somewhere else there would have to be an enforce mechanism in place to make the founding fathers put them in the constitution.

The founding fathers were not bound by previously written or imagined laws or rights. They had a clean sheet of paper.

Assault weapons are the tools of mass murderers.

You still don’t get it any shooting where four or more people are wounded or killed is a mass shooting.

If it was a traffic accident that started the shooting it is a mass shooting. If it was a rape that started it is a mass shooting it is a mass shooting. If it was a man who killed his whole family it is a mass shooting. If it was a bank robbery that started the mass shooting it is a mass shooting. If it was a drive by shooting it is a mass shooting. Mass shooting is the umbrella term you can then break it down into sub categories, like road rage, bank robberies, murder suicides but any shooting that meets that definition is a mass shooting.

I can’t improve on what the founding fathers wrote, it is simply what is written down.

Free speech applies any time you are speaking whether in person or on the phone.

If you believe you have unlimited free speech try posting Trump’s wife is a whore or that you are going to do something to the president.

We had a local republican candidate for mayor on radio who start talking about what he was going to do to Obama. The secret service was soon at his front door.

The militia problem has been solved we have the most powerful standing army in the world any attempt to beat them with a few right-wing nuts armed with assault weapons would be useless exercise.

The world has moved on in 200 years. You want to live in the past that no longer exists

Gun owners are now a small minority and even some gun owners have been destroying their assault weapons.

Sorry the legal definition of assault weapons says nothing about a selective fire switch.

Remington went bankrupt while in the process of trying to defend itself from the Sandy Hook lawsuits.

The suit is still ongoing and the actual marketing and internal documents have been subpoenaed to prove they were marketed to aggressive gun nuts. One ad read “get your man ticket punched” as if killing school children was somehow macho.

It was a mass shooting and the North Hollywood bank robbers fired the biggest portion of the 2,000 rounds that were fired.

Illegally modified weapons, right, but if they didn’t have assault weapons in the first place, they could not modify them. You could not modify a regular 22 rifle to fire 2,000 in a few minutes.

70% now believe that Trump has done something wrong.

Clinton was impeached by Republicans for telling a lie about his sex life.

If Obama had doe half of what Trump has done, the Republicans would have demanded he be hung on the Whitehouse lawn.

The corrupt Republicans in the senate will not vote for impeachment because they know Trump will make sure they will never get reelected.

The tipping point took place when Trump pulled the troops out of Syria and let al Qaeda slaughter the Kurds, who did the fighting against ISIS, the military motto is leave no man behind but Trump’s motto is kill them all and see if I care.

Most uninformed voters don’t understand the complex issues going on in Washington.

Do you really believe you can’t go visit relatives?

Zimmerman was looking for a fight and Zimmerman had no authority to stop and question him.

Zimmerman’s authority was limited to watch and call the police if he saw something going.

If he thought I was a suspicious person he should have called the police and that is what Zimmerman should have done.

There was one man and one child involved in that incident and only one lived to tell the story.

When people commit murder, they don’t tell the truth. So, you have only the story from somebody has a huge interest in lying.

There have been many murders made legal by the stand your ground laws and there will be many more.

The gun manufactures are will aware of the fact that 78% of Americans no longer own guns and the stand your ground laws are designed to sell more guns as this type of legalized murder will encourage people to buy more because they are afraid, they will be legally killed by a gun bully.

The GOP has protected the right to bear arms, the DNC has done everything in it's power to overturn the 2nd Amendment.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the governing body for the United States Democratic Party. The committee coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office. It organizes the Democratic National Convention held every four years to nominate and confirm a candidate for president, and to formulate the party platform. While it provides support for party candidates, it does not have direct authority over elected officials.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I notice you claim the Republican Party (GOP) protects the right to bear arms, then you mention the DNC as its Democratic counterpart. For the umpteenth time, "DNC" is not a synonym for the Democratic Party the way "GOP" is for the Republican Party. If you want to be consistently (but wrong) start using "RNC" when referring the the Republican Party.

As to your specious claim that the Democrats have done "everything in their power to try to overturn the 2nd Amendment" you should be able to provide evidence of this. Here's the process:

So show us where the Democratic National Committee or Democrats in Congress have moved to begin this process. Who's proposed this amendment? Who's argued for its ratification? How many Democratically-controlled states have signed on?

What's next, are you going to try and convince us that they haven't called for an end to our borders and an end to ICE? Are you going to convince us that they haven't called for free healthcare to all illegal immigrants?

The problem with your post is that we all know what the DNC is trying to do with the 2nd Amendment.

You have blinders on when it comes the DNC, they can do no wrong.

You make a claim that Democrats are trying to "overturn" the 2nd Amendment. I provide documentation for the process of repealing a constitutional amendment and you can't deal with it. What's your problem, comrade?

Um, those issues aren't linked specifically to a Constitutional amendment, comrade. And yes, I am going to dispute your contention that those issues reflect policy positions of the Democratic Party. Some Democrats have called for those measures, and others reject them.

The problem with your post is that "the DNC" isn't trying to do anything to the 2nd Amendment. Sure, lots of Democrats have called for changes in our gun laws but you can't provide one example of the DNC formally proposing repeal of the amendment.

The DNC has done plenty that's wrong. But the issue here is that you're wrong. You're wrong to confuse the DNC with the Democratic Party. You never refer to the Republican Party as the RNC. Case closed.

They don't have the votes to overturn it, so instead they propose laws that restrict certain types of guns, they require unconstitutional hoops to jump through to get FOID cards. They want to implement taxes or fee's on every process of either getting a gun or buying the ammo or require insurance to use a Constitutional Right.

They all raised their hands when asked about the free healthcare for illegal immigrants.

I'll use RNC in place of GOP if that what will make you feel better

If we allow people to swap cooking recipes on the internet, does that mean that Free Speech is still recognized even if Trump actively censors all political speech that he dislikes?

If we require people to pay a tax before getting an abortion, does that mean that the right to have an abortion is still recognized?

A president can't "actively censor" free speech -- see the ruling in the Pentagon Papers. And even if he were able to temporarily stifle a news story he objected to, he can't prevent people from spreading the story through other means or from talking about it.

Come up with a more apt analogy and we can discuss it.

As long as there's a provision for those who can't afford the fee, sure.

So your ideas about allowing rights to be violated so long as people can exercise them in some other form are nonsense.

Do you apply the same provision to your proposed tax on ammo?

That's your interpretation, not mine. I'm just pointing out that, Constitution or no Constitution, it's very difficult to prevent the dissemination of information. "Rights" are an abstraction; I'm talking about how the world actually works.

Retail customers already pay a tax on ammo in states which levy sales taxes and I haven't heard of anyone claiming that it violated their rights.

You'll have to come up with better examples if you expect me to continue this discussion with you.

What does your reference to the court ruling in the Pentagon Papers have to do with that?

From the way that you dodged the question...

Since you acknowledge that a tax on abortions would be unconstitutional without such a provision...

It was for your benefit; it doesn't pertain to my observations about the dissemination of information outside a constitutional framework.

It was a poorly framed question since ammo is already subject to taxation and nobody raises a constitutional objection to the practice.

I never said anything specifically about constitutionality.

I pointed out that if the procedure is subject to a tax or fee of some kind, it's legality is recognized and if provision were made for the indigent I wouldn't find it objectionable.

You're going to have to make your responses more pertinent to my arguments if you expect me to take you seriously.

So in other words you were just dodging the question.

The question was clear and concise, and it demonstrated that your idea is just another progressive attempt to violate the Constitution.

When you talk about society recognizing rights, that is talking about constitutionality.

So you were just dodging the question again.

You have no significance.

So in other words, you just interpreted my response as if I were dodging the question. I'd already moved beyond your question about cookie recipes.

You may think it was clear and concise but unfortunately it missed the point entirely.

No, that's talking about society.

No, you just keep trying to define the parameters of the discussion to suit your beliefs and opinions.