Recent Shooting and Discussion

Brute said:
Jesus Fucking Christ?!?
Click to expand...

I apologize if what I just said offended anyone...I'm getting old, and apparently less tolerant of ignorance.

Perhaps it's time for the tribe to drag my ass out into the wilderness and let the Wolves eat me...
 
Brute said:
I apologize if what I just said offended anyone...I'm getting old, and apparently less tolerant of ignorance.

Perhaps it's time for the tribe to drag my ass out into the wilderness and let the Wolves eat me...
Click to expand...

Don't be a pussy.
 
Brute said:
I apologize if what I just said offended anyone...I'm getting old, and apparently less tolerant of ignorance.

Perhaps it's time for the tribe to drag my ass out into the wilderness and let the Wolves eat me...
Click to expand...

I don’t feel an apology is necessary. Keep saying what you want.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
Brute said:
I apologize if what I just said offended anyone...I'm getting old, and apparently less tolerant of ignorance.

Perhaps it's time for the tribe to drag my ass out into the wilderness and let the Wolves eat me...
Click to expand...

I am also offended by your apology and need to go find a safe space to be in for the next 3-5 days. That will show you the error of your apologizing ways....
 
Sharkey said:
If by "Jesus" you mean an omnipotent savior that droves of people believe in with little or no scientific and empirical support for their beliefs (aka "blind faith"), then I couldn't agree more.



That meme totally offends me, but only because that's how lawyers are made, not Democrats.
Click to expand...

Then what could be worse than a lawyer who's a Democrat?...
 
Same here brute, never meant to offend anyone. Don’t remember exactly how we got into the politics but at the end of the day we must be able to put our minds together and figure out a way to stop these senseless shootings.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
kellyk said:
Same here brute, never meant to offend anyone. Don’t remember exactly how we got into the politics but at the end of the day we must be able to put our minds together and figure out a way to stop these senseless shootings.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

And I appreciate the attempt to get the thread back on topic. :thumb:
 
Primo82 said:
Read my post. I never said 'BAN'. I think bans are stupid, people will kill people. I think making magazine fed semi-auto weapons a class III NFA item would reduce the occurrence of kids getting killed by psychos. Do you agree/disagree?
Click to expand...

I think any bans on the right to Bear Arms is a direct infringement on the 2nd Amandment. It is clearly stated that the rights bear arms shall not be infringed, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As you can see there is a comma between the two seperate groups, a regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. it is not all incompassed.

As one of our great forefathers, Ben Franklin once said - “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Also, “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)
 
Last edited:
monstrousmac said:
I think any bans on the right to Bear Arms is a direct infringement on the 2nd Amandment. It is clearly stated that the rights bear arms shall not be infringed, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As you can see there is a comma between the two seperate groups, a regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. it is not all incompassed.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, in your opinion any person should be able to purchase any weapon at any time?
 
TLife said:
Just to be clear, in your opinion any person should be able to purchase any weapon at any time?
Click to expand...

I believe that if you have a right to protect yourself, now I am not say there should not be stipulations individuals. Such as if you are not legally able to purchase a firearm due to a diagnosed mental illness (not someone claiming that you are mentally ill, such as Red Flag Laws), or current convicted felon. Now, this is where it gets complicated, I do believe if you were convicted of a felony and have served your time, then you get all your constitutional rights back. If you go with the notion that they are a danger to society still and should not own a gun, then why are they out of prison? There are people that have felonies for non-violent crimes when they were young. Now, these people grow up and have a family and want to own a fire arm to protect their family can't even though they served their time. As already stated, people have used vehicles, knives, poison and etc...Hell, look at John Wayne Casey, Jim Jones and other serial killers. If someone is committed to do harm to others they will find the means. Another favorite one of my Quotes is from the movie Shane - Shane: A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it.

Another issue are these incompetent Judges letting dangerous people out of prison early, like the case in California, or how Justice System are has been circumvented by lawyers offering plea deals to dangerous criminals and letting them back on the street. Or, not enforcing laws already on the books.
 
Last edited:
monstrousmac said:
I believe that if you have a right to protect yourself, now I am not say there should not be stipulatiations on individuals. Such as if you are not legally able to puchase a firearm due to a diagnosed mental illness (not someone claiming that you are mentally ill, such as Red Flag Laws), or current convicted felon. Now, this is where it gets complicated, I do believe if you were convicted of a felony and have served your time, then you get all your constituional rights back. If you go with the notion that they are a danger to society still and should not own a gun , then why are they out of prison?
Click to expand...

How is any of what you just stated not an infringement on a person's unequivocal right "to keep and bear Arms"? The right cannot be both absolute and subject to any restriction. It's one or the other. You seem reasonable in that you do recognize some level of restriction is Constitutional. But if you recognize that some level of restriction is Constitutional, then you have to recognize that the right is therefore not absolute. A truly absolute right is one that is neither given by, nor can be taken away by, Congressional action.

I like your citation to the dicta in Murdock; have you read the rest of the case so you know that even the Murdock court recognized that certain fees and restrictions were appropriate?

Here is a quote for you about what constitutes "Arms" from the now deceased Justice Antonin Scalia. As I am sure you know, J. Scalia was very conservative.

"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2791, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).

Interesting definition in the context of M16 or AR "styled" weapons, no?
 
Last edited:
Sharkey said:
How is any of what you just stated not an infringement on a person's unequivocal right "to keep and bear Arms"? The right cannot be both absolute and subject to any restriction. It's one or the other. You seem reasonable in that you do recognize some level of restriction is Constitutional. But if you recognize that some level of restriction is Constitutional, then you have to recognize that the right is therefore not absolute. A truly absolute right is one that is neither given by, nor can be taken away by, Congressional action.

I like your citation to the dicta in Murdock; have you read the rest of the case so you know that even the Murdock court recognized that certain fees and restrictions were appropriate?

Here is a quote for you about what constitutes "Arms" from the now deceased Justice Antonin Scalia. As I am sure you know, J. Scalia was very conservative.

"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2791, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).

Interesting definition in the context of M16 or AR "styled" weapons, no?
Click to expand...

Though many will glimpse right over the many points and factual references you provide, they are also appreciated by others.

I’ve never seen the Scalia statement and legal reference before. Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom