crickets...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're spin is disingenuous.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

The Supreme Court has never endorsed a militia dependent right. The right has always been recognized by SCOTUS to be possessed by individual citizens independent of any militia enrollment status or attchment.

Your chronology is backwards. The "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations first appeared in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower (Circuit) court cases. Those two opinions spun US v Miller (1939) on its head and ignored /dismissed the determinations of SCOTUS to arrive at these new "collective right" interpretations.

Those theories held sway in the lower federal courts and state courts until DC v Heller in 2008, where SCOTUS re-affirmed the individual right, relied on US v Cruikshank (1876) and Miller's precedent -- one prong of Miller's protection criteria (in common use) -- to invalidate DC's statutes and 66 years of lower federal court perversions.

Originally Posted by spence

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

I agree. It will take decades to unwind the dozens of mid-20th Century lower federal court and state court decisions that sustained hundreds of unconstitutional gun control laws.

Originally Posted by spence

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.

Says the guy that says a true examination of the issue is TLDR.

[Slipknot]

A good guy with a gun stopped a madman with a gun.


Horrible atrocity that could have been worse. I say good for the good guy with the AR-15 for shooting back and killing the guy. In case you don't know if you were spoon fed the narrative the news is trying to give us that it was suicide because more firearms were in his car, the guy bled out from his wounds while the 2 good guys waited for police.

When you take on the responsibility of gun ownership, you are obsessive about locks Bob, no need for a reminder to check locks, I suggest arm yourself. The more people that are armed, the better. This isn't the first mass shooting and won't be the last sadly, it is just the latest. And a horrible one at that.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When I was 9 years old, I left my house at 8 AM, with my bike and my baseball glove, and told my parents I was going out to play, and I'd be home for dinner.

Not in my neighborhoods - we went out but ()*#(#*$@ sure locked the doors

Originally Posted by spence

Did you ever think maybe the MSM isn't reporting it because it's likely made up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some of it is , some of it isn't, some simply too early to tell.

Originally Posted by wdmso

this is how the base see's it on breitbart

Cough, Salon, cough

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

If you don't consider a man who beats his wife and child deranged then how would you describe him? I would condemn him for that action alone. If he can legally obtain a weapon with his track record then the problem is a lack of sensible laws,no doubt the NRA,along with the conservative base are culpable for these generous liberties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It seems he was dishonorably discharged from AF for his domestic violence and it appears Texas denied him a purchase because of DV history.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I read that he was denied an application for guns in Texas. Which is interesting, I presume that's not a place known for being tough to get a gun. I'm curious where he got his sexy "assault rifle".

Unfortunately multiple ways for people that should not have them to get them. One of the reasons why people get them legally - and jump through all the hoops - to provide safety for their loved ones.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I think its idiotic. The BSA already had a coed program called Ventures. They do the same things as the Boy Scouts plus a few more things that the Boy Scouts can't do (i.e. shoot hand guns, snow mobiles).

This was just caving to pressure because people get all butt-hurt over the word "Boy"

Even the Girl Scouts were upset about it. Girl Scouts can do all the things boy scouts can do if they want. I personally know a GS leader that takes her girls Hiking and Camping.

I'm mixed. Opportunity for girls to get Eagle is great, impacts on how it may disrupt the programs now could be a negative. Bring the Eagle to Venture and allow girls to track there?

Originally Posted by spence

It will be good for the kids. The gender disassociation early will lead to stronger adults, less harassment etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Must remember Spence trolls.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It seems he was dishonorably discharged from AF for his domestic violence and it appears Texas denied him a purchase because of DV history.



Unfortunately multiple ways for people that should not have them to get them. One of the reasons why people get them legally - and jump through all the hoops - to provide safety for their loved ones.

Air force dropped the ball never reported his criminal record to the FBI so it was not in his NCIC NICS check. Hard to cover that up

[Slipknot]

I and many others are with you 100 percent on term limits. It would be nice, but difficult since they are the ones voting themselves raises, exclusive retirement plans, better than we have health care etc.


As far as government tyranny, open your mind, it's already happening right before our eyes. Learn from history, you do NOT want an unarmed public defenseless against tyrannical government.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Air force dropped the ball never reported his criminal record to the FBI so it was not in his NCIC NICS check. Hard to cover that up

Yes - I saw that since. TX denied him a LTC on a prior application

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

A good guy with a gun stopped a madman with a gun.


Horrible atrocity that could have been worse. I say good for the good guy with the AR-15 for shooting back and killing the guy. In case you don't know if you were spoon fed the narrative the news is trying to give us that it was suicide because more firearms were in his car, the guy bled out from his wounds while the 2 good guys waited for police.

When you take on the responsibility of gun ownership, you are obsessive about locks Bob, no need for a reminder to check locks, I suggest arm yourself. The more people that are armed, the better. This isn't the first mass shooting and won't be the last sadly, it is just the latest. And a horrible one at that.

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by wdmso

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

Had that good guy not stopped the shooter how many more would have been killed ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Had that good guy not stopped the shooter how many more would have been killed ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

Read your post again please. Only a die hard liberal, would fail to see a silver lining, when an ordinary citizen hears a mass shooting, and runs towards it, in this case without stopping to put shoes on. As the shooter fled, the hero flagged down a motorist and said "we must go after him". Only a dedicated liberal could so completely fail to be moved by such an act of love.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Read your post again please. Only a die hard liberal, would fail to see a silver lining, when an ordinary citizen hears a mass shooting, and runs towards it, in this case without stopping to put shoes on. As the shooter fled, the hero flagged down a motorist and said "we must go after him". Only a dedicated liberal could so completely fail to be moved by such an act of love.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

. Act of love OMG there a twist... Seems conservative love the needle in a haystack argument. I am not saying the guy didn’t help stop further deaths . But thats not the portrait 2 a or the NRA want to paint .. their solution to the gun issue . is Bad guy with a gun good guy with a gun = no shootings. Once 26 people are killed we are past it could have been worse rationally. The man did a stand up thing no doubt .

people run in to burning houses to save people . We don’t use those examples to not have smoke detectors and suggest we need more people who can smell smoke . but we’ll use the one guy in how many shooting who helped stop a shooting to suggest we need good guys with gun more guns??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

. Seems conservative love the needle in a haystack argument. I am not saying the guy didn’t help stop further deaths . But that not the portrait 2 a or the NRA want to paint .. their soulution to the gun issue . Bad guy with a gun good guy with a gun = no shootings. Once 26 people are killed we are past it could have been worse rationally. The man did a stand up thing no doubt . And people run in to burning houses to save people they don’t know . We don’t use those examples to not have smoke detectors but we’ll use the one guy in how many shooting helped stop a shooting to suggest we need more guns??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oooohh...Gun Detectors would be a great idea

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

ABSOLUTELY really , it is disrespectful to think otherwise

the killer was shooting those already down in the body to be sure they were dead, also shooting cell phones so they could not call for help. One woman shot 4 times in the leg was about to be next when she heard shots from the hero. Her prayers were answered, lucky for her. The other 20 hurt would have been killed so maybe it bothers you that the police were not able to get there faster than a good guy with a gun. The guy had a vest on and was ready for more shooting possibly with police so don't try to say the good guy did not stop many more from dying because that is insane.

Your massive ego is getting in the way of the truth.

[detbuch]

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1131128]I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

Originally Posted by detbuch:

I think that environmentalists should prefer mass killings rather than one-at-a-time types. Overpopulation leads to human pollution of the planet. We need more of those human cleansing incidents and conditions--mass killings, abortions, gay marriage, gender displacements, war/pestilence/famine/and hunger, More ideologies like Islam, and restrictive laws to keep us controlled and in place, in order to reduce the population and keep it down.

Assault weapons should be considered a good thing.

Wow, not much I can say to that, I'm sure the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the children killed in this latest AR carnage will find comfort in your empathy. I hope you don't loose the other screws holding you together, I also hope that you too are armed to the teeth, because those are some scary and evil sentiments. Also for one who has such a fear of big government, I'd suggest you better watch what you type, homeland security is looking for text just like that; no doubt those statements fits the profile of many that might be on their radar.

Uuhhh . . . my post was, like . . . sarcasm. With a bit of a poke at some greeny contradiction. I apologize if I mislead you. On the other hand, your responses are interesting. A bit myopic, but interesting.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger.

Maybe you should take some pills to help you with your anxiety issue.

We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.


Minor problem is, unlike fertilizer, seatbelts, and alcohol, there is this little thing relating to guns referred to as the Second Amendment. I realize that you believe we should get "sensible" about that Amendment, but that would take another Amendment.

As I said "The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save thousands of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. Would be kind of hard to enforce without the use of guns. But, the only gun law able to stop thousands or single digits of deaths is to eliminate the existence of guns. That would, without a need for further legislation, disarm everyone including, and especially, all governments." Good luck with that.


Don't read more into what I'm suggesting, I have no issues with handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns or any other legally purchased firearm in the pursuit of what every warm blooded man or women loves to do. I too loved hunting back when I was younger, but aside from fueling a shortage of testosterone, helping someone deal with a little big man issue or making someone like you with such a dismal view of the future feel more secure; what purpose does the AR assault weapon serve?


Again, it is unfortunate for your sentiments that the 2A was not about hunting or fueling a shortage of testosterone. Actually, AR assault TYPE weapons would be more effective in helping to accomplish what the 2A is about than the other toys with which you have no issue. Those toys, BTW, kill "thousands" more in this country than the AR does. Still don't understand why there is less of an emotional outrage to those far greater numbers killed than by the AR style guns. But it's your choice about what you get outraged.

Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government?

The 2A is a preventative measure which helps to make sure that we don't have to fight our own government. That's the whole point of it. To ensure government doesn't remove itself from the bonds the Founders placed it. Before the British government tried to change things, the colonists also thought, as you do, that they were in a place where it didn't seem necessary to defend against government tyranny. So they had to scramble to fight against it when it showed up. They learned the hard way the need of prevention, rather than waiting for disaster to occur in order to mobilize against it. You know . . . that ounce of prevention thingy.

Again, while we are witnessing a lot of scary stuff, I feel sorry that you have such a depressing view of where our government is or could become.

No need to feel sorry for me. I'm not depressed. I accept reality. And I'm not scared as you seem to be about "scary stuff." Maybe I should feel sorry for you that you view scary stuff. And aren't you one of those who keep telling us how bad it is having Trump as President? About what dangers and depressing things we might be facing because of that? Hmmm . . . pot /kettle syndrome.

Do you really think one leader or some government/military conspiracy to take total control is in the cards, boy how do you sleep at night?


I am less concerned about that than you seem to be of Trump, and unreasonable conservatives.

And if you do and the possibility that the military in it's entirety will actually sign on (tin foil hat tipped here), do you think the small percentage of AR armed civilians are going to stop that?

I've already spoken to the military takeover thing. Don't feel like doing it over and over. If anything, at least at this time, I think the military may be a wall against the destruction of the Constitution. On my "side" more than yours.


Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

So when Gatling guns were created for military use, what happened to the playing field?

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.
Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.

Oh, so now we can imagine some possibility--as long as it isn't about stuff like tyranny, dictatorial government, all that nonsense that just can't happen because it just can't.

Again I feel sorry for you and your view of where our government and society is, must be tough on you to see where your kids and grand-kids are in a couple decades.

Again, you needn't feel sorry for me. I am happy, and very much so, in that I don't need your sympathy, nor anything else from you. The only concern I have about you is that you'll vote for someone who wants to "help" me. If I thought it would matter, I'd ask you to consider what a rare thing our Constitution with its checks and balances is, and to have that always be your concern when you vote. But I understand why you consider that thinking a relic of the past.

Do I like our government today, not in the least, but I'm not looking at the glass half empty. We need change and I'm 110% convinced term limits is the exact change needed, but if that happens; I'd suggest to you the interpretation of the 2nd amendment will likely change to a more realistic one in light of our time and place and not one living in the past like you.

It is possible not to appreciate the past. And to forget it. But it is the only thing you can live in. Everything we've just discussed is now in the past. The future cannot exist. Once "it" appears it is past. The present is so fleeting that it takes the past to realize what it is. I suspect death could be that way. It could be too instantaneous to recognize. And death's future may be so empty that life, that ever present past, cannot be remembered.

So the past is our only teacher. If we do not learn from it, we are truly ignorant.


Changing interpretations of an idea is not "realistic." It is the erasure of the idea. A replacement with another idea, not merely another interpretation of it. I'd suggest right back at ya that interpreting the 2A to mean something other than what it has really meant (is reality realistic?) is actually eliminating it. Same goes for the Constitution as a whole. There is no need to suffer under the illusion of maintaining, and abiding by, the Constitution if you don't believe it is "realistic." I'd suggest to you that what you suggest is its illimination. It's alright, actually honest, to admit that. Otherwise your living an illusion, not realistically.

And, BTW, term limits has to be approved by those who will have to limit their terms. Is it "realistic" to expect that to happen? And if it did, how would that preserve the Constitution? And why would that be an assurance that you would get a government that you like?

[Got Stripers]

To Detbuch,

I'd never suggest we don't learn from the past. I'd also say evolution always wins it's undeniable, to live in the past without change in order to evolve is just ignorant. I only suggest that current events might suggest arms of mass destruction might be better off left in the hands of the military. You suggest I'm fearful, yet you want your AR's to be ready to militia up if the government goes dictator on you; I don't fear that at all you own that fear.

Modern day militia really; that's the argument you own and as usual it's the final 2nd amendment argument; heard it and read it on every thread that's similar. It's the same old argument, 2nd amendment, we have the right, I get it; but is it reasonable today? It made 110% sense then and there, I'd be standing and giving the founding fathers a standing ovation for those 27 words, but times change and only idiots don't accept that fact.

Please don't insult me by giving me that BS argument that the only reasonable change is to ban all guns, what a crock of crap that statement is. I have no issue with guns, or the right to bear them, but if the nut job didn't have access to the AR type rifle, how many lives would have been lost or saved.

If you think you and a hand full of your friends armed with AR assault rifles in your town and the next one over are going to make a bit of difference, then I want some of what you are smoking. The fact that you actually think that will come to be necessary makes you the guy with the fear factor and frankly i choose to have a much more optimistic view on where we as a society can go.

Don't mix my opinion of Trump with this argument, do I agree with the way Trump is governing, absolutely not; but that has nothing to do with this thread. Don't mix my believe in on environmental changes being a larger threat then many believe; again it has nothing to do with this thread. You fear the government and more regulations, then go do something about it, that's the wonderful thing about being an AMERICAN, we can all believe in different things and do our best to make changes by the way we vote and treat our fellow man.

My glass as always is more than half full.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

To Detbuch,

I'd never suggest we don't learn from the past.

What have you learned from the past?

I'd also say evolution always wins it's undeniable, to live in the past without change in order to evolve is just ignorant.

Evolution doesn't require change. It is change. Changes and their direction depend on the mix. Mass shootings are evolutionary results. Dictatorships are evolutionary results. Revolutions are evolutionary actions. These are all the results of conflicts and positive or negative interactions. For evolution to occur, there must be those conflicts, interactions, wars, among the mix of things. And the things must be of some fundamental nature. For there to be change, there has to be a foundation from which change occurs. When there is a change in the foundation, new species "evolve." So far, humans, as we know them, are fundamentally the same as in the Founders time; are the same as in the annals of recorded history. We have not evolved into something else yet. The notion that we can regulate out of existence conflict, war, or interactions we disapprove of, is what's ignorant. If we could, that would be the end of evolution. It is in our fundamental nature to resist regulation that stifles our individual portion of that spectrum of human possibility.

That's why the Constitution is such an evolutionary friendly foundation of government. It allows the greatest scope of freedom to evolve in various directions with the least friction and destruction among individual differences. Of course, it is evidently a portion of our nature to protect ourselves from intrusion into the freedoms it provides. Yet there are those who impose that portion of their human nature which seeks personal satisfaction on others against their will. Some, even to the point of ruling nations. Some, just warring on neighbors. Government restriction against people's ability to protect themselves against either type of war, stifles the freedom of the many to evolve in their preferred and individual way in order to stifle the license of a few. It is anti-evolutionary. The greater the restrictions are in scope and power, the less "peaceful" can there be evolution.

Changing the foundation of the Constitution by interpreting it to mean other than what it does, and to mean that freedom (not license) is limited, restricts peaceful evolution, and evolves into adversary conflict, which can evolve into more authoritarian, less evolutionary government.


I only suggest that current events might suggest arms of mass destruction might be better off left in the hands of the military. You suggest I'm fearful, yet you want your AR's to be ready to militia up if the government goes dictator on you; I don't fear that at all you own that fear.

I see. You don't fear anything. You just make suggestions. Me too. I suggest that current events indeed suggest that the world, as always, is a dangerous place. And I suggest that politicians like Schumer, Hillary, Sanders, Warren (who aren't going to turn limit themselves), haven't made it less dangerous, nor can they. You can suggest yourself into whatever suggestions will save a few lives. Although, I haven't heard any suggestions from you how to do that, it sounds pitiful enough to be worthy of great suggestion.


Modern day militia really; that's the argument you own and as usual it's the final 2nd amendment argument; heard it and read it on every thread that's similar. It's the same old argument, 2nd amendment, we have the right, I get it; but is it reasonable today?

Yes. It is reasonable, and more so, rational. And the militia meant (still does in spite of authoritarians attempt to make it a formal government unit) is the people. And the same old argument is the entire Constitution and freedom vs despotism be it soft or dictatorial.

And the argument you own is some general notion that today is different than yesterday because of evolution. No reason or rationale other than some undefined evolution into some undefined difference.

It made 110% sense then and there, I'd be standing and giving the founding fathers a standing ovation for those 27 words, but times change and only idiots don't accept that fact.

In what fundamental way has human nature changed? "Times" constantly change. So fast now that government, law, that has to suit constant change would not be possible. Laws and systems of government which are fundamentally based on "times" is for "idiots."

Please don't insult me by giving me that BS argument that the only reasonable change is to ban all guns, what a crock of crap that statement is. I have no issue with guns, or the right to bear them, but if the nut job didn't have access to the AR type rifle, how many lives would have been lost or saved.

Don't insult me by misquoting me. I said "The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save THOUSANDS of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. So far, the THOUSANDS of gun deaths in this country aren't caused by using AR types. Most "nut jobs" use hand guns. Or maybe you don't consider criminal killers to be "nut jobs." You only have an issue with nut jobs and AR's. The thousands of more lives taken by hand guns or non AR's are just not as much of a problem as the AR types for you. We shouldn't, therefor, ban hand guns. Just ban AR types.

That sounds like a "crock of crap" as you so nicely put it.

If you think you and a hand full of your friends armed with AR assault rifles in your town and the next one over are going to make a bit of difference, then I want some of what you are smoking. The fact that you actually think that will come to be necessary makes you the guy with the fear factor and frankly i choose to have a much more optimistic view on where we as a society can go.

OK. So you don't fear AR's. You just worry about them. As in when you said "I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger."

Of course, there is no need to worry enough about someone with life changing experiences in a dark place having an illegal handgun, at least not to the point of banning handguns.

And what makes you special because you have an "optimistic view on where we as a society can go." What makes you think that I don't have an optimistic view of where it CAN go. Sure, I have an optimistic view of where it can go. I'm optimistic about some of the ways it is now going. You said "Do I like our government today, not in the least," There's a lot about it that I don't like. But I still like its foundation more than any other.



Don't mix my opinion of Trump with this argument, do I agree with the way Trump is governing, absolutely not; but that has nothing to do with this thread.

You said I was afraid of big government. Trump is the President of big government. How is your concern, or worry, (since you say you don't fear) about the damage to the country that he will supposedly do, how is that concern not akin to what you accuse me of in this thread?

Don't mix my believe in on environmental changes being a larger threat then many believe; again it has nothing to do with this thread.

Where do you get off telling me what I can mix? That was a sarcastic fictitious (on my part) take on the "numbers" killed issue that you guys keep bringing up about AR's. Don't particularly care if you didn't like it. And I made it something to do with this thread. For fun.

You fear the government and more regulations, then go do something about it, that's the wonderful thing about being an AMERICAN, we can all believe in different things and do our best to make changes by the way we vote and treat our fellow man.

You keep, ad nauseam, referring to my "fear" of something. And that you don't have fears, just suggestions, or worries, or a half full glass. I don't recall saying I feared government or regulations. That's your characterization of me. I try to have rational discussions regarding our system of government. I try to be very reasonable. I don't impose emotional arguments. I back up what I say with historical facts. With what Progressives have actually said and admitted re our constitutional system.

OK. So none of what I have presented makes sense to you. OK. You just believe things could not go in a direction of all powerful government, even though if you read the actual documents of what the founders of Progressivism in this country proposed for governance, which I presented in a factually cited manner, you will see that in effect, and words, that is exactly what they said. That government should not be constrained by the Constitution, but have the unhampered power to do whatever it thinks is right and good. OK. You don't notice how much power the federal government has given itself through the use of unconstitutional regulatory agencies and Court decisions which they admitted were tortuous twisting of the Constitutional original meanings in order to do as they wish. OK. Fine. I accept that--with sorrow, not fear. But I try, as you tell me, to do something about it by having discussions, not just on this forum. Some people understand. Some don't. There seems to be some recognition by more people now of what is happening.

But, as you say. Evolution always wins. I wouldn't put it that way, but I know what you mean. If we evolve into the State in which the authoritarian direction is taking us, then that will be the "winner." But, it can't rationally be denied that it is our evolutionary direction if a course correction is not made. Where we will go from there, only "evolution" will tell us.

My glass as always is more than half full.

Good for you.

[Sea Dangles]

That's right, but some dopes don't seem to mind. They glorify these events to suit their agenda. Do you actually think he was going home to read a book instead of going on to slaughter innocent people which was happening without resistance? Many folks owe their life to a man with a gun at the wrong place at the right time. To imply otherwise is the act of a deranged individual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

That's right, but some dopes don't seem to mind. They glorify these events to suit their agenda. Do you actually think he was going home to read a book instead of going on to slaughter innocent people which was happening without resistance? Many folks owe their life to a man with a gun at the wrong place at the right time. To imply otherwise is the act of a deranged individual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes I ask myself...self...if caught in this situation are my odds of survival better if I and others around me are armed or unarmed?

[Jim in CT]

The new liberal tactic is to attack those who publicly call for prayer. Especially in Hollywood, it's nice to see the liberals stop raping each other long enough to attack people of faith. Are the liberals trying to lose more and more of middle America?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, see, you keep saying again and again that I am in error. That doesn't make it so. Some of the founding fathers were fine with banning guns on campus. I therefore conclude that they never intended the second amendment be absolute. Along the same lines, I have freedom of speech, but I cannot threaten someone or yell "fire", which is (I think) further evidence that limitations on the bill of rights, are not necessarily unconstitutional. I think I make a compelling case. Telling me to shut up, isn't refuting what I am saying. That's what liberals do when they have no cards to play.

When the big and emotional assault on Second Amendment rights is being argued on the basis of federal power, is demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion.

Otherwise, if you keep plying some unspecified, general limitations on those rights, it gives fuel to the fire of calls for some unspecified power of the federal government to regulate Bill of Rights freedoms. And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. Does that sound reasonable to you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When the big and emotional assault on Second Amendment rights is being argued on the basis of federal power, is demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion.

Otherwise, if you keep plying some unspecified, general limitations on those rights, it gives fuel to the fire of calls for some unspecified power of the federal government to regulate Bill of Rights freedoms. And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. Does that sound reasonable to you?

"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."

Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...

"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "

Yes, that is the road to tyranny.

"Does that sound reasonable to you?"

No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."

Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...

"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "

Yes, that is the road to tyranny.

"Does that sound reasonable to you?"

No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.

If you agreed to my reasoning of what led to the road to tyranny, and then said it was unreasonable because if the government takes that road there is nothing you can do to stop it, then I don't know what reasonable means to you.

Unless . . . oh . . . unless, since reasonableness can't stop the fed from killing you, reasonableness can give the fed power to stop you from killing others. Yeah, I see a sort of symmetry there. Yeah, tyranny is the only reasonable way to stop killings, except of course, it can't stop government from doing so.

I kind of think that's what I sort of said or implied by references to Brave New World and world wide bans on production of guns which are portrayed as nonsense suggestions.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Like I said before I have no problem with guns, yes I have issues as I'm sure many do, of illegal handguns getting into the wrong hands; but not legal sale of guns to anyone who can qualify. I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had. Same goes for rifles, shotguns and anything else needed to pursue your passion for hunting and shooting.

Why should you be allowed to act on a passion for hunting and shooting if the tools used for your passion can kill thousands of people?

BTW the Texan you refer to used an AR 15 not a handgun.

If we take the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in order to form a militia to defend or defeat a tyrannical government, I think the list needs to include far more than your over the gun counter AR rifle.

The Second Amendment already does that.

First the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population might be really good stuff for that next science fiction movie, but that's all it is fiction.

So because you say it is fiction, it must therefor be fiction. History be damned.

Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long.

As you might say, "today's society" has evolved (I use that in a metaphorical way, not a scientific way--even metaphorically, mutated might be better than evolved). Has "evolved" from a society that saw possibilities, underscored by actual history, to one that is encouraged to ignore history so is not capable of seeing possibilities. And not even being able to see how powerful and restrictive its government has actually become. And which is spoon fed the diet of fearing each other, but never to suspect a government which steadily separates itself from society, becoming more its master than its servant. And a society which willingly dons a hat which it can no longer see is made of tin foil.

But lets assume for a minute that it actually a possibility, what percentage of the civilian population are armed and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military?

If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified.

But if the people still hold and protect constitutional rights, and if so too does the military, then there will be no need to take arms against the military. It would be the federal government, not the people, that would be powerless except to do the people's will and to stay within the bounds that the Constitution affords it.

The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

But if the ifs I noted above occur, then yes, the scenario you describe is possible. That you think it isn't possible implies to me that the scope of possibilities you envision is unusually, or deficiently, narrow.

Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

WOW, I can't wait for the book and then the movie, I think it's going to be a dynamic read and exciting movie

Those movies have already been made. The books were best sellers, and the movies were box office hits.

BTW, this notion that we have evolved and the Constitution must evolve with us is either stupid on its face, or is just ignorant, or is scientifically sounding propaganda meant to persuade us of its merits.

It typically takes several thousands, if not millions of years for the process of evolution to bring about a fundamental change in biological matter and in the most complex "living" things, including humans. The notion that we have fundamentally evolved in a span of 200 years is not science. Nor even logic. Certainly not fact. Humans are fundamentally the same now as they were in the Founder's time. The Constitutional framework is as relevant now to human nature as it was in their time. It, indeed, was founded on that very human nature that we still entirely possess.

Our "times" may change, but the change is merely mode and fashion, not fundamental. Modes of transportation or weaponry, or technological advances, do not fundamentally change what we are. Our passions, desires, motivations, egos, ability to love or hate, to love beauty and truth or to lie and be ugly, to be good or evil, to wish to be free or be dependent, to rule or be ruled, and so forth, have not changed. And we are still the same political, social beings, or animals if you wish, who form governments which in various ways respond to what we fundamentally are. Those governments range in manner and scope from totalitarian to anarchist. The Constitution is probably the most "centrist" in that it protects individual proclivities in that broad range to function together in the freest most harmonious possible way. When you change our constitutional structure in either direction relative to the range between the totalitarian to the anarchic, you drift in either one of those directions and away from the ideological and harmonious center.

The rights which are inherent to us in the Constitution are the foundation for its existence. The powers in the Constitution which we consent to the government we form are not to create an all powerful government, but for the purpose of protecting our inherent rights. When we, for public safety, or any altruistic or dictatorial purpose, relinquish some inherent right over to expanded government power, under the pretext of public safety, we take a step in the direction of the totalitarian by restricting the vast many in order to somehow restrict the minute few. And we lessen the duty of the central government to protect our inherent rights, giving it, on the contrary, the power to replace some inherent rights with those it prescribes. And thus we begin the process of precedent to go farther and farther down that path.

[Got Stripers]

"The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

Thanks for making my point, a militia isn't ever going to be required, because we have a military comprised of people just like you and I regardless of our differences in opinions. So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

I give up...how many?

[wdmso]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

"The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

Thanks for making my point, a militia isn't ever going to be required, because we have a military comprised of people just like you and I regardless of our differences in opinions. So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

Did you notice the qualifiers "still" and "at this time" in the passage by me that you quoted. The 2A is a preventative, so that the people might have some recourse when the "if"s in the unquoted previous passage above your quoted one might happen: "If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that the Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified."

If enough citizens and military personnel remain who have not become part of those ifs, the 2A can provide some recourse if there is the will and desire to "fight the power."

And if there is not enough will and desire, then, as I said, "your trust in the federal government better be justified." History does not justify such a trust. But we are conditioned to be blind to history, especially if we are not conscious of the signs or trends which should cause us to be wary.

Those signs and trends are so in our face, it is amazing that so many of us don't see them. You call that view a tin foil hat. I call it head in the sand.

It would still be easy to make a course direction by political rather than military means. That is my desire. And no, in spite of the 2A recourse the Constitution gives us, I also see the signs and trends that the Progressive model has been so implanted in the American psyche that recourse to the 2A would probably be a futile bloody mess if there were even enough of those who would rebel.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

still waiting from way back on page 1 for specifics on what should be done....despite claims of not wanting to ban guns entirely that is logical conclusion, is it not? .... claims of only wanting to limit the deaths and injuries through some "common sense laws" only last till the next incident, then what ???? pat yourself on the back for saving lives that may otherwise have been lost if bump stocks or high capacity magazines were used...... and what do you blame then ? what is your next "common sense law" when these incidents occur after enacting common sense law?... if you read the comments associated with the stories of this tragedy you see that there are a LOT of Americans that believe no one should own a gun....

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

It demonstrates that Progressives / Liberals are so invested in their agenda they can not allow themselves to engage in reasoned discussion.

They have their demands flowing from positions grounded only in emotional constructs. That's why they react with either anger or hateful derision when simply challenged on a legal / constitutional basis. Such a challenge is processed as an attack of their feelings and as such can not be rebutted with reason and facts.

Heartstrings and virtue signalling are completely immune to Supreme Court citation.

As the old debate maxim says, you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.