Gun Control

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Eight dead as truck runs down cyclist while driver shouts 'Allahu Akbar'

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

Not even a week and already we have a new mass murder. He wasn't a Muslim nor did he use a truck. Shocked

So come on down and congratulate Devin Kelley,who set a new record for mass murder in Texas,not an easy thing to do in a state full of gun nuts. cheers

Gun Control - Page 40 171106-devin-kelley-mug-1015a_8bc465ea489f988ebcac040ed28e8316.nbcnews-ux-600-700

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/texas-church-shooting/who-devin-kelley-alleged-texas-church-shooter-n817806

Until the next one Gun Control - Page 40 FlickeringWideBedbug

Gun Control - Page 40 FlickeringWideBedbug

happy jack wrote:

In response to a horrific mass murder, she writes:

Artie60438 wrote:

She hasn't been this ecstatic since the last time police officers were gunned down.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: So come on down and congratulate Devin Kelley,who set a new record for mass murder in Texas,not an easy thing to do in a state full of gun nuts.

You may ignorantly disparage Texas all you wish, but it was not the state of Texas that allowed him to purchase the weapon (purchased in 2016) that he used in the shootings. That happened because he was negligently not flagged in the NICBC database, which is managed by the feds, and who happened to be, at the time, under the jurisdiction of .... wait for it .... the Obama administration! The state of Texas also did its due diligence in denying him a license to carry a weapon in that state.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/article183055101.html

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: That happened because he was negligently not flagged in the NICBC database

That sounds dangerously close to admitting that gun control works.

Posts : 6988

It is dangerously close to acknowledging that existing laws that do not allow felons to own and carry firearms might work if only they were .... you know .... enforced.

Posts : 3520

Yep. 100% agree. Gun control could be a thing here in the States if we actually allowed for proven measures (like all other first world nations), that you even agreed to (don't worry; we'll tell all your friends you were drunk and/or high).

Cat's out of the bag. Can't wait to see what Matrix dodge you'll try to get you out of admitting gun control could work if enforced.

Don't forget, it needs to explain why Europe isn't a MadMax hellscape.

Sorry you got caught up in this. I know it's embarrassing. But we've been telling you for over a decade to think for yourself instead of regurgitating whatever Drudge tells you too. That kind of blind faith is how you end up justifying Moore's pedophilia.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: Yep. 100% agree. Gun control could be a thing here in the States if we actually allowed for proven measures (like all other first world nations), that you even agreed to (don't worry; we'll tell all your friends you were drunk and/or high).

Cat's out of the bag. Can't wait to see what Matrix dodge you'll try to get you out of admitting gun control could work if enforced.

Devin Kelley, even before his final act, should not have been allowed to even breathe the same air as normal people, much less enjoy the same rights as normal people, so I have no problem with a felon such as he having his 2nd amendment rights infringed upon. I don't consider that to be gun control - I consider that to be felon control.
I only have a problem when infringement involves innocent, law-abiding citizens - like me.

Heretic wrote:: That kind of blind faith is how you end up justifying Moore's pedophilia.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Do you?

Posts : 6988

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/16/sorry-nra-the-u-s-was-actually-founded-on-gun-control/

Hope no one accidentally stepped in this steaming pile.

Posts : 3520

I'm simply in awe of the intellectual depth of that rebuttal.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: I'm simply in awe of the intellectual depth of that rebuttal.

Well, I guess I could have cited this ....

Now that we have your attention, let’s consider the case made by the NRA, its Congressional hired hands, the majority of the Supreme Court, and various right wing pundits who claim the Second Amendment is not simply about state militias but guarantees the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun.

.... but I've never seen the Supreme Court, or anyone else, for that matter, make that claim.

And I've never heard anyone else make the argument that the first draft of an amendment shoukd be adhered to, rather than the actual finished and ratified version.

Or that the Framers were afraid of guns.

All better?
I hope so, because the pile still steams.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: https://www.salon.com/2017/12/16/sorry-nra-the-u-s-was-actually-founded-on-gun-control/

Hope no one accidentally stepped in this steaming pile.

From the article...

Quote :: But Madison’s original intent remains and is there hiding in plain sight for any Supreme Court Justice who takes the pains to look for it. The gun crowd and their apparatchiks ignore, as well, the very reason the Second Amendment got into the Constitution in the first place: to calm the anti-Federalists’ fears of the establishment of a standing army. The Second Amendment is, in fact, Madison’s (and the Federalists’) response to those who felt threatened that the strong central government, as proposed in the new Constitution, might disarm the state militias. And to miss that connection is to . . . well, miss everything.

happy jack wrote:: And I've never heard anyone else make the argument that the first draft of an amendment shoukd be adhered to, rather than the actual finished and ratified version.

So you're saying that original intent doesn't matter?

Wow.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: https://www.salon.com/2017/12/16/sorry-nra-the-u-s-was-actually-founded-on-gun-control/

Hope no one accidentally stepped in this steaming pile.

From the article...

Quote :: But Madison’s original intent remains and is there hiding in plain sight for any Supreme Court Justice who takes the pains to look for it. The gun crowd and their apparatchiks ignore, as well, the very reason the Second Amendment got into the Constitution in the first place: to calm the anti-Federalists’ fears of the establishment of a standing army. The Second Amendment is, in fact, Madison’s (and the Federalists’) response to those who felt threatened that the strong central government, as proposed in the new Constitution, might disarm the state militias. And to miss that connection is to . . . well, miss everything.

happy jack wrote:: And I've never heard anyone else make the argument that the first draft of an amendment shoukd be adhered to, rather than the actual finished and ratified version.

So you're saying that original intent doesn't matter?

Wow.

Wow.
Did I say that?
I don't think so.
The point I am making is that original intent does matter, but only if it is well-reasoned and well-considered, and not based upon some random thought that just happens to pop into one's head.
I sorta doubt that Madison was the type of guy to interject himself into a debate over the Constitution and say, "Hey, fellow powdered-wig dudes - have I got an amendment for you. How's about we don't think about it at all, and just ratify the fuck out of the little bugger immediately?"
Is that what you think happened?
If Paul McCartney had gone with the first draft of his "original intent", the most-covered song in the history of music would not have been called Yesterday - it would have been called Scrambled Eggs, and it likely would not have become the most-covered song in the history of music, and would likely have remained at the bottom of his lyric notebook.
So original intent does matter - just not its first draft.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/the-beatles/11680415/Yesterday-the-song-that-started-as-Scrambled-Eggs.html

Yesterday: the song that started as Scrambled Eggs

It was originally called Scrambled Eggs

Keen to not forget his magical dream melody, McCartney wrote some temporary lyrics for the song – about scrambled eggs, and named it after the breakfast dish. They went: "Scrambled eggs, oh, my baby, how I love your legs…" Contrary to rumour, a second verse, in which the singer praised cottage fries and his muse's thighs, didn't ever get written as McCartney would end up laughing after the first line.
Scrambled Eggs became a running joke between the band for "months and months" before it was recorded in June, according to Lennon, who said: "Every time we got together to write songs or for a recording session, this would come up. It became a joke between us.
We almost had it finished when we made up our minds that only a one word title would suit and, believe me, we just couldn’t find the right one. Then, one morning, Paul woke up, and the song and the title were both there. Completed! I know it sound like a fairy tale, but it is the plain truth. I was sorry, in a way, because we had so many laughs about it."

Posts : 2141

We'll get back to this...

But for today, I just want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

Posts : 9728

Scorpion wrote:: We'll get back to this...

But for today, I just want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

So I guess that means I'll have to cross you off the list as a soldier fighting for the war on christmas.
Happy Holidays Razz

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: We'll get back to this...

But for today, I just want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas

Posts : 3520

I'll just leave this here...

Tennessee lawmakers to allow guns but prohibit 'hand-carried signs' in new building

Quote :: Tennesseans will be allowed to bring their guns to the new home of the legislature but must leave any hand-held signs behind, according to a recently implemented policy.

The policy, which Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, R-Oak Ridge, and House Speaker Beth Harwell, R-Nashville, approved Dec. 14, expressly prohibits “hand-carried signs and signs on hand sticks” because they “represent a serious safety hazard.”

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

I'll just leave this here...

Tennessee lawmakers to allow guns but prohibit 'hand-carried signs' in new building

Quote :: Tennesseans will be allowed to bring their guns to the new home of the legislature but must leave any hand-held signs behind, according to a recently implemented policy.

The policy, which Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, R-Oak Ridge, and House Speaker Beth Harwell, R-Nashville, approved Dec. 14, expressly prohibits “hand-carried signs and signs on hand sticks” because they “represent a serious safety hazard.”

I'll give you my sign when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Posts : 3520

Trump gets it.

Quote :: 'Well, we do have gun control laws and this sick person – he was a sicko. I mean that’s the big problem – they’re sick people. If he didn’t have a gun, he would have had a bomb, or would have something else.’

‘But he had 55 guns,’ I said.

‘The point is, he would have had 55 bombs,’ replied the President. ‘He would have had 55 of something else.’

So clearly, each and every "something else" should be completely legal and available at Wal-Mart tomorrow, with no limits, registration, or background checks. Because Freedom, and because "control" never, ever works.

Posts : 9728

Advocate for the Mass Murder of School Children wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: The AR-15 rife carried by Holmes, a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16, would have been defined as a “semiautomatic assault weapon” under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. If the law was still in force, semiautomatic assault weapons would have been outright banned:

Let’s get something straight – it’s either an assault weapon, or it’s a semi-automatic weapon. It is one, or it is the other, but it is not both (although most assault weapons may also be fired in semi-automatic mode); the two terms are not interchangeable, regardless of how semi-automatic weapons have been defined in the Assault Weapons bill, defined by legislators who are either grossly ignorant or attempting to deliberately mislead as to the nature and functionality of such weapons.

Artie60438 wrote:: The primary purpose of this gun was to shoot as many targets (innocent people) as possible.

I am personally acquainted with several AR-15 owners. Not one of them has ever used his AR-15 to kill another person, innocent or otherwise.

MSNBC’s Scarborough Labels

Quote :: Opponents Of Gun Control ‘Domestic Terrorist Enablers’ And ‘Useful Idiots’

Quote :: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said Thursday that people who don’t want new gun control laws are “domestic terrorist enablers’ And “useful idiots.”

Quote :: “I just wonder, though, today, who will be those domestic terrorist enablers? Who are going to be the useful idiots in the media, on web sites and on Capitol Hill that will make excuses for the gun lobby?”

-------

https://nofree.forumotion.com/viewtopic.forum?t=18886

» Gun Control
» Why is the Gun Control thread locked?
» White House Control of the Internet
» Time for Hammond Animal Control to be Euthanized