![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Remove the first comma. Heller, McDonald, and BBS have the only reasonable interpretation of the second amendment. Please tell me more.
What are Reasonable and Possible Solutions to Reduce Shootings (Schools and Venues)
- Thread starter College#19
- Start date
Remove the first comma. Heller, McDonald, and BBS have the only reasonable interpretation of the second amendment. Please tell me more.
Please tell me more.
Oh it's way more than just that. Many scholars agree with the whole prefeatory statement bit when it comes to the 2nd amendment. DC v. Heller ruled in this way as well as McDonald v. City of Chicago.
The militia is the people. The second amendment is an individual right.
Nope. Not is it unlimited. And the evidence suggest it's cirrelty not anywhere close to even being well regulated.
https://alumni.berkeley.edu/califor...bout-well-regulated-militia-part-constitution
Linking an article from possibly the most liberal university in the country. Good luck.
Whoa, Tonto . . . I'm no legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but aren't you getting something backwards? Seriously, seriously backwards? McDonald is considered maybe the most prominent, "post-Heller" case. The Heller decision was clear, the right of citizens to bear arms ain't got a g-dammed thing to do with need for militia, security of the state. IT SPECIFICALLY RULED IT DOES NOT. There ain't jack-squat in either of those cases that agrees with one iota of your militia connection squabble. One thing that you did say somewhat correctly: any other interpretation than Heller on the matter is "just erroneous". However, Heller decision did go on to say that right to firearm ownership is not unlimited in the sense that it may be regulated, it did not say how. Maybe that is the part you intended to hang your liberal pinky on. Heller applied to DC, a federal district. The McDonald case, years after, expanded on the decision, but again, had nothing to do with whether militia conditioned the right. The McDonald case took to question whether the right to keep and bear arms is protected by due process under the 14th amendment. It was the first time the US Supreme Court was put to the task and they agreed with McDonald et al, the 2nd amendment exists for citizens to defend themselves. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Eat it, slug. But before you do, I want to thank you for prompting a correct illustration of how important Heller is in the discussion of whether need for militia conditions citizens' right to bear arms, and whether it shall not be infringed. It is important. And it ruled that militia phrasing that you cherish so much DOES NOT condition our right. Don't infringe it. Take it up with the US Supreme Court. They've told you to leave us alone.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.
Last edited:
an individual right to defend one's self. the supreme court so ruled in those cases, including in the McDonald case by due process via 14th amendment. I have no clue what form of revisionist history that chucklehead is fantasizing about - the whacked out, kinky, endorsed by stoned professors and endangered porn stars kind.
Great interview with Otis McDonald...
http://proarmspodcast.com/049-a-conversation-with-otis-mcdonald/
http://proarmspodcast.com/049-a-conversation-with-otis-mcdonald/
Linking an article from possibly the most liberal university in the country. Good luck.
I could've linked an article from literally anywhere and your response would've been the same. It always cracks me up how with this one Amendment conservatives go with such a literal translation. Go with any other and the tune changes completely. In the meantime we will just continue to allow innocent people and children be slaughtered at schools.... Move along----nothing more to see here.
I've always viewed the second amendment as setting up the conditions necessary for a militia to exist, not requiring service in a militia. But yes, we have decided as a country that we aren't interested in fixing the problem and are ok with our children being shot in school.
Gotta find a way to fix the problem without infringing on the 2A. No one is giving up their guns. No one.
The comparison between the 1st and 2nd amendments isn't a bad analogy at all. Though I'd argue that the consequences of our choice to view the second amendment as providing relatively unlimited rights to gun ownership are more imminently concerned with life and death than our similar view of the 1st amendment.
I don't know if people are saying that the only reasons school shootings happen is because the second amendment exists, but that certainly is one factor.
So the 2A is a factor in the reason for school shootings? Ridiculous.
School shooter: "That damn 2A in existence makes me wanna shoot up a school"
The way we interpret the second amendment in providing relatively unlimited rights to gun ownership creates an ease of access to firearms for potential shooters. I'm not calling for any abolition of the second amendment, but there is no doubt that it factors into this equation.
That has never and will never change in me. Need to continue to teach our children the same values. Two of my three children think this way.
Except for we don't have unlimited gun rights. I can't own a grenade launcher or an AK 47 manufactured after 1986 may not be owned by a citizen.
guns aren't the problem. It's a societal problem. If SJWs want to help, then start it by not bullying the kids in school. Or raise parents taking responsibility for their kid's behaviors due to their crappy parenting
I never said I wanted the 2nd amendment gone or that I wanted an all out ban. Really the first thing I want is for the Dickey Amendment to be struck down and the CDC to be fully allowed to study gun crime and particularly mass shootings throughly.
Right we have people saying it's a culture issue or a gun issue or a school issue but the reality is everyone is really in the dark as to what the causss really are because the CDC isn't even allowed to touch this subject matter due to an NRA funded/backed amendment proposed by Jay Dickey from Arkansas in 1996 that severely limits resources to do so.
Right we have people saying it's a culture issue or a gun issue or a school issue but the reality is everyone is really in the dark as to what the causss really are because the CDC isn't even allowed to touch this subject matter due to an NRA funded/backed amendment proposed by Jay Dickey from Arkansas in 1996 that severely limits resources to do so.
You really don't want that unless you want over half of all violent crime perpetraters to be incarcerated. You wouldn't be a racist, would you, Sean?
When I was growing up, our guns were in a closet I knew where they were and where the ammo was. Same fir all us kids, none of us ever killed anything but rabbits and squirrels. What changed in the last 50 years? That is the question that needs asking. Daddy had a shotgun, 7mm Mauser, and P38 pistol. Never once did I ever think about killing someone. It is not the gun, bad parenting and liberal brainwashing of our kids, plus and most important is the media glorifying these crazies.
Until the gun control crowd fully realize that a gun is a tool. It takes a human to make it work. Nothing will ever get done.
Them guns could have ebola
Anything that has turbocharged our emotions like social media, perhaps has the power to free them as well.
If we want things to get more divided, more chaotic, keep politics and the news media involved in the discussion.
If we want things to get more divided, more chaotic, keep politics and the news media involved in the discussion.
BBS you have gotta keep it under 140 characters for the righties. Beyond that, it just looks like a conspiracy theory to them.
Usually, when you post or talk too much, you are not secure with your stance or, you know it is BS and you are trying to sell it.
Get your people to take money from planned parenthood and fund the CDC. Kinda simple isn't it?
And once again I say what happens to the 17 year old honor student who is home while you and the Mrs are having a romantic anniversary dinner? A thug or two happen to kick in the door and she is all alone. The difference between her getting raped/murdered might be easy access to a weapon. Is she allowed a key to the safe? Is she given her own safe and key? Is her fingerprint part of the home safe opening procedure?
Do you not understand that in the time it takes her to frantically open that safe in the moment of crisis, it might very well be too late? That is why people have guns in closets, or under mattresses, or in drawers, or leaned up against a wall. And frankly, that is there frigging prerogative. If people have guns for home protection, that is exactly what they are for, HOME PROTECTION. The terror of someone coming into your home will cause so much confusion that any member of the home may very well NOT be able to access a weapon even if it is readily accessible. You want to make them find a key? Or remember a code? Or see if they can put their fingerprint on the keypad long enough to open the safe?
I am very curious if you have a family, and really curious how you think this situation should be handled. Like I said, please tell me if it is your daughter and you and your wife are at a restaurant an hour away from home, how is she supposed to protect herself when a monster kicks in her door?
You can come up with all kinds of hypotheticals, but for a minor at home, by far the best advise is to keep doors locked when parents aren't at home, preferable with dead bolts. If a stranger comes to the door or pounds on it, the youth should call 9-11. A secure door is not going to be "kicked down" easily like they do in the movies with balsa wood doors. An untrained minor in a highly nervous, panicky state of mind, is at risk to shoot an innocent person.
I'm all for law abiding adults to own a gun for personal security if they want one, I have one myself, but we have to have limits in the interest of safety. But whatever laws you come up with there will always be exceptional cases you can cite.
In England kids just try to spoon those home invaders to death. If they only had a butter knife.
As for keeping schools safe: About 15 years ago when the economy was in bad shape and lots of people were on the unemployment rolls for an extended period of time, the pols decided to increase the amount of time unemployed workers could receive benefits. As a school admin, I thought " If someone told me they'd give me 200 unemployed people who had been properly screened to work in my school while they drew their unemployment checks, I could have had the most secure school in the country".....and it would not have cost the government a red cent more than they were already spending.
There are probably other ways these people could be used. Not only would it have beneficial to the schools, but it would have been good for the workers as they would be contributing to society in a very meaningful way.
If a person like me with limited intelligence can come up with ideas like this, why can't our leaders?
There are probably other ways these people could be used. Not only would it have beneficial to the schools, but it would have been good for the workers as they would be contributing to society in a very meaningful way.
If a person like me with limited intelligence can come up with ideas like this, why can't our leaders?
Say someone comes in and is whipping your ass because you have a gun but it’s locked up because you don’t trust your grown ass 16 year old boy who drives cars, finger pops chicks, and smokes camel lights to handle a gun without shooting himself in the face. Brilliant!
And what happens in the 15-30 minutes it takes for cops to get there?
No thanks. First off, I find it monumentally ironic and even disgusting that your username is what it is. Second, I want my daughter shooting, knowing how to shoot, being ready to shoot, being empowered to do so, defend herself to the maximum extent possible, to include paying attention to the loaded gun in her hands and, if need be, waiting until later to call 9-11 or, for that matter, her daddy to get home.
Last thing, hooray for Hollywood and you. And anybody else on the other side of a balsa wood door, who believe in the notion of kicking and pounding your way to sustained innocence, someone else's property, someone else's door, where inside is someone else's daughter. Now please take your "blame-the-victim", manhood-neutered ideas and flush them down a uni-gender bathroom . . . potty.
