74 school shootings in 77 weeks...Worth it's own thread.

[RDD_1210]

It's called a Constitutional amendment.

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.

Ignore the bolded red words please. Go 'Murica!

Ignore the bolded blue words please. God bless the U.S.A.

I'd love to hear about the militia you are a part of. Do tell.

 

[Mr Natural]

That's less than one a week.

So what's the big deal?

 

[Bush92]

We are being overran by an invasion from Mexico, China is a direct challenge to our power in the world, and Obama is giving away terrorist for a deserter...and this is an important issue to you? How? Why?

 

[rightwinger]

Find a solution that doesn't restrict my right to a firearm, then come back. Right now all you preach is restricting the rights of lawful gun owners, and lawful potential gun owners.

I can't

Because you are unwilling to suffer any inconvenience in your desire to build an arsenal. Our children pay the price....but at least nobody restricts your access to a Bushmaster

So can I take away your drivers license because someone else drives drunk?

No, but I will subject myself to a sobriety check
Why won't you submit to a background check?

 

[hunarcy]

Liberals led by the socialist agenda of the democrats. Get the guns, is one of those aspects where they use tragedies like this to exploit.

They will get their utterly useful idiots better known as political pawns like hazelnut or the other left wing losers to obfuscate the real causes of these actions. They will chant for simplistic solutions and they will never engage in any kind of discussion about the logistical realities of their simplistic solutions.

Meanwhile, we are still batting .1000 when it comes to individuals carrying out mass violence being on some prescription medication.

Notice all they do is attack whites and right wingers and use lame hyperboles in doing so. I have not seen one of them show a real solid plan to get all of the 300 million guns in circulation. They say they want background checks. There are background checks already. So, now what?

They cannot answer these things. They are committed pawns to their democrats in office who are committed socialists and hate the constitution and everything that the constitution stands for. Why? Cause the constitution limits their power over the people. What do those democrats do? They make it seem they truly care for the American people that have power over them, by giving never ending lines of fairly tale bullshit on virtually every issue. Meanwhile the squishpots think they are such academic intellectuals while they carry on like the pawns they are, and the democrats exploit all of these tragedies by bringing up irrelevant fallacies in order strip more power from the people.

Liberals wanted to "improve" our society by emptying the asylums and turning the mentally ill onto the streets because they didn't approve of conditions in all mental hospitals.

Liberals wanted to "improve" our society by eliminating standards of social behavior because it "stifled" individual expression.

Liberals wanted to "improve" our society by weakening the nuclear family because they believed the "village" can raise a child better than a father and mother.

Now, we have this wave of violence and they wring their hands and complain about firearms so they don't have to accept the responsibility for their choices and actions.

They have all of their cliches of talking points. They know nothing else. They do not care about anything else.

Hell, they do not care one bit about the victims of these shootings. Not one bit. They care about finding a way to stick a thumb in the eye of a white right winger. That is it and really that is all.

They claim to be on the side of the poor, down trodden and tortured, yet they cry over the liberation of the citizens of Iraq from a tyrant who....were down trodden, poor and tortured.

In your examples, they do not care at all. Not one bit. They turn to the news sources to tell them what side they are suppose to be on, or simply go with the popular disposition.

Therefore they shift their stances, and that means they stand for nothing. They virtually impossible to debate. Look at them with the stock market. They protest wall street then praise Obama for paying off his cronies by creating ZIRP (zer interest rate policy) and the market is artificially inflated. All to the loud cheers of these OWS protesters. All of a sudden they are on the side of wall street?

That is just one little example. All of them are pathetic.

When you look at our society in the past, more people owned firearms and we didn't have such tragedies. It's not firearms that made the difference, it's the "improved" society created by Liberals. They don't care about the mentally ill, and will admit they don't want the mentally ill in a hospital getting the treatment they need. They don't care that these poor people are homeless, suffering delusions and arguing with lampposts. People like that disgust me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ignore the bolded red words please. Go 'Murica!

Ignore the bolded blue words please. God bless the U.S.A.

I'd love to hear about the militia you are a part of. Do tell.

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

 

[RDD_1210]

We are being overran by an invasion from Mexico, China is a direct challenge to our power in the world, and Obama is giving away terrorist for a deserter...and this is an important issue to you? How? Why?

Good point. American kids being murdered every week in American schools isn't really much of an issue.

"That's the price of freedom!"

 

[Skull Pilot]

I can't

Because you are unwilling to suffer any inconvenience in your desire to build an arsenal. Our children pay the price....but at least nobody restricts your access to a Bushmaster

So can I take away your drivers license because someone else drives drunk?

No, but I will subject myself to a sobriety check
Why won't you submit to a background check?

I have had my checks done.

I have my fingerprints on file with the state even though I have never committed a crime

So I should be able to walk into any gun store and but any gun I want.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ignore the bolded blue words please. God bless the U.S.A.

I'd love to hear about the militia you are a part of. Do tell.

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

Secondary, yet they started the amendment with it. Solid analysis.

 

[rightwinger]

Ignore the bolded blue words please. God bless the U.S.A.

I'd love to hear about the militia you are a part of. Do tell.

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

It referenced all white, male, landowning people

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'd love to hear about the militia you are a part of. Do tell.

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

Secondary, yet they started the amendment with it. Solid analysis.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

Me too.

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'd love to hear about the militia you are a part of. Do tell.

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

It referenced all white, male, landowning people

So the bill of rights only applies to white land owners now?

 

[RDD_1210]

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

Secondary, yet they started the amendment with it. Solid analysis.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

Me too.

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

Yeah, he's not a biased source or anything.

About the Author


Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.

 

[Theowl32]

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

It referenced all white, male, landowning people

So the bill of rights only applies to white land owners now?

Like I have said. All they stand for is finding different ways to stick a thumb in the eye of a white right winger. That is it. That is all.

All they essentially are, are a bag of liberal talking points and cliches.

 

[Darkwind]

I believe abortion is murder, but I don't blame the vacuum aspiration machine.

That slap was heard all across America!

With English!

 

[Wildman]

And still, you refuse to look at the root cause of these tragedies. Hint: it's not guns.

Bullets?


Of course if you walk into a school with a handful of bullets and start hurling them at children, you're not going to kill anyone.

So it seems that you're incorrect, guns are as much a part of the problem as the bullets they fire.

Better luck next time.

it's good to see that you survived your lobotomy.., what's next ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Secondary, yet they started the amendment with it. Solid analysis.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment



Me too.

Yeah, he's not a biased source or anything.

About the Author


Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.

Hey idiot Schulman is not the source. The language expert he interviewed is the source.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

 

[mudwhistle]

Advertising a gun-free zone on national news, and then refusing to guard those gun-free zones is just asking for wholesale attacks by nut cases.

Creating a crisis out of whole cloth.


Funny how the left excels at creating one crisis after another.

 

[martybegan]

I'd love to hear about the militia you are a part of. Do tell.

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

Secondary, yet they started the amendment with it. Solid analysis.

They could have said the militia keeps the right to bear arms. They didn't.
They could have said the States keep the right to bear arms. They didn't.
They could have said Militia members keep the right to bear arms. They didn't.

They gave that right to the people, so they could FORM the militia when so needed.

 

[rightwinger]

The militia part is secondary.

The writers of thew Constitution knew the difference between the people and the state.

Every other time the word people was used in the Constitution it referenced ALL people not just some.

Secondary, yet they started the amendment with it. Solid analysis.

They could have said the militia keeps the right to bear arms. They didn't.
They could have said the States keep the right to bear arms. They didn't.
They could have said Militia members keep the right to bear arms. They didn't.

They gave that right to the people, so they could FORM the militia when so needed.

They could have just said "The Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed". They didn't