America's Gun Violence

unsung

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Bentleyspop said:

Go Beavers said:

Stickman12 said:

Degeneratefk said:

It gets so old hearing gun nuts say they will run to the gun store and spend their life savings on a few more guns because the Democrat is going to take them all away!

I dont think that its about democrats taking currently owned guns away but more about a ban like Bill Clinton signed or restrictions on magazines.

Why are people buying all these guns, when in a couple months, Obama is going to take them?

Shhhhhh

Not President Obama
But rather the U.N. troops that he will use to come and take your guns.





After he declares Marshall law of course.

Or Martial.

Or Marital.

Ok

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

Stickman12 said:

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/02/october-gun-sales-see-massive-spike-set-yet-another-record.html

Godfather.

IF Hillary wins, I would imagine sales will soar for November-January. IF Trump wins, I can see prices fall to new lows.

I don't trust Trump and his sudden pro-gun support.

his out-of-nowhere support of reversing roe v wade is suspect too.

unsung

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Stickman12 said:

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/02/october-gun-sales-see-massive-spike-set-yet-another-record.html

Godfather.

IF Hillary wins, I would imagine sales will soar for November-January. IF Trump wins, I can see prices fall to new lows.

I don't trust Trump and his sudden pro-gun support.

his out-of-nowhere support of reversing roe v wade is suspect too.

I will admit missing that statement.

However, I maintain should he win it will become one of the best wool over the eyes tricks in US history.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Stickman12 said:

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/02/october-gun-sales-see-massive-spike-set-yet-another-record.html

Godfather.

IF Hillary wins, I would imagine sales will soar for November-January. IF Trump wins, I can see prices fall to new lows.

I don't trust Trump and his sudden pro-gun support.

his out-of-nowhere support of reversing roe v wade is suspect too.

I will admit missing that statement.

However, I maintain should he win it will become one of the best wool over the eyes tricks in US history.

he has said he will appoint justices that are pro life. when pressed if that means he is pro life, he wouldn't answer. he just kept saying he will appoint pro life justices. and then he went off the cliff about ripping babies from the womb at the due date and all that shit.

unsung

Well here's the thing, justices are supposed to issue opinions on case law, not public opinion.

But it should be a state issue. Just like most of what they issue opinions on.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

Well here's the thing, justices are supposed to issue opinions on case law, not public opinion.

But it should be a state issue. Just like most of what they issue opinions on.

so reversing 40 years of case law would be ok?

he did state he would leave it up to each state to decide.

unsung

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

CM189191

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Go Beavers

I always thought the leave it to the states thing is a politicians spineless cop out and a way to try and please the most people possible with a non answer. Wait for the states rights people to step in when a state is doing something they don't like.

PJ_Soul

It's weird to see someone try to represent himself as a statist and an anarchist at the same time.

unsung

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

unsung

PJ_Soul said:

It's weird to see someone try to represent himself as a statist and an anarchist at the same time.

It's weird seeing someone so obsessed with everything I say.

rgambs

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws.
They have been proven.
There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws.
Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc

If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.

Stickman12

rgambs said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws.
They have been proven.
There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws.
Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc

If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.

What flaws are you referring too?

unsung

rgambs said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws.
They have been proven.
There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws.
Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc

If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.

It is not a living document. It is dead, thanks to many years of ignorance which greatly started during the Civil War.

It was supposed to be a set of rules to keep the General Government in check, but due to many people being unable to control their own lives it has fallen victim to corrupt politicians over whatever popular opinion happens to be at the time.

Go Beavers

So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?

Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.

rgambs

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws.
They have been proven.
There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws.
Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc

If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.

It is not a living document. It is dead, thanks to many years of ignorance which greatly started during the Civil War.

It was supposed to be a set of rules to keep the General Government in check, but due to many people being unable to control their own lives it has fallen victim to corrupt politicians over whatever popular opinion happens to be at the time.

I agree, it was very hard for slaves to control their own lives, and they just weren't able.

CM189191

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?

Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.

Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution....

...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.

*photo from NRA HQ in DC

rgambs

Stickman12 said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws.
They have been proven.
There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws.
Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc

If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.

What flaws are you referring too?

The one that allowed people to own people. The one that didn't let women or people of color vote. The one that allowed states to do as they pleased until the country was nearly destroyed. Those are a few.