Another Mall shooter finds his destiny... A good guy with a gun...

[Donald H]

Fwiw, I consider Bootney's post above to be in bad taste and taking the discussion to an extreme .

 

[woodwork201]

Yeah.....well, 200 years ago if you murdered somebody, they had a public hanging right after the trial. Bring that back and I'll be glad to join your side.

So rather than demanding public hangings which would reduce murders, you call for gun control that does not reduce murders?

Join my side and call for real justice and for laws that actually reduce crime.

Under your unregulated constitutional carry,

I've already asked you to define constitutional carry. I haven't caught up to see if you have answered it yet; perhaps you have.

Let me answer it: constitutional carry is uninfringed keeping and bearing of arms as required by the Constitution.

If constitutional carry doesn't mean that then it shouldn't be called constitutional carry; maybe it should be called, "carrying with government permission but that permission is assumed unless the government says otherwise" carry.

you would have to allow violent ex-cons to be able to own and carry gun after they got out of prison. Would you be comfortable with that? I wouldn't. Or if a person was deemed to be mentally incompetent to use a firearm. Even people on the no fly list and illegals crossing our borders.

First off, current law treats felony littering the same as 1st degree murder, in regards to stripping gun rights so it's not just violent felons. But let's go with violent felons anyway; I'll make the assumption that you'd agree with restoring rights to non-violent felons.

Do you have any evidence that any violent felon who wanted a gun was not able to get a gun? Maybe a story of an ex-con who published his memoirs and, in them, says something like, "I was going to get a gun, rob the liquor store, and kill the clerk, but then I remembered I was a convicted felon and the law doesn't allow me to have a gun. Not wanting to break the gun law in order to commit the murder, I decided to watch reruns of Andy Griffith that night, instead."

I can't swear to it and am not going to search it out, you can tell me if I'm wrong, but I imagine that you've said about proposed new gun laws, because almost every gun rights advocate says it, that gun laws don't work because criminals don't follow laws. Obviously this fact, whether or not you've claimed it, applies to felons and their possession of guns.

Surely you're not going to suggest that the ban on felons owning guns keeps them from owning guns, are you?

But I will tell you who does keep from owning guns: Their law-abiding spouse cannot own guns. Their adult children in the home cannot own guns.

So there has to be gun regulations in order to protect the public. The question is to what extent.

No, there is no need for a gun regulation, other than things like chambers tested to withstand the pressures of firing the rounds for which it is designed, in order to protect the public. Crimes are not guns and guns are not crimes.

It is what a human being does with their gun that makes a crime. Robbing a liquor store is a crime. Killing someone is a crime. Raping someone is a crime. Not a single gun regulation is required in order to enforce any of those crimes.

 

[woodwork201]

Fwiw, I consider Bootney's post above to be in bad taste and taking the discussion to an extreme .

People need to see the world as it is. You'd like potential mall shooters to not see that outcome because it might dissuade them from shooting up a mall.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Fwiw, I consider Bootney's post above to be in bad taste and taking the discussion to an extreme .

Man, you are PISSED that the little shit in that photo is dead. You are LIVID that he didn't get to reload and kill hundreds more.

Why?

 

[WEATHER53]

Fwiw, I consider Bootney's post above to be in bad taste and taking the discussion to an extreme .

Revealing the consequences of being a mass murderer is certainly not your safe space reality material.

 

[woodwork201]

Isn’t Ahmaud Arbery an example of that?

No. One of Arbery's killers was a retired cop so he certainly knew the law. One of the others was the ex-cop's son who must certainly have known the law.

I can't find an answer of whether or not McMichael the younger had a CCW permit but, in this context, it doesn't matter: Georgia's constitutional carry law wasn't passed until 2022 and their CCW law required a training class to get a permit.

So, no, you're wrong. Ahmaud Arbery's killing has nothing at all to do with whether a training class prevents illegal vigilantism.

 

[woodwork201]

Don’t we have have mandatory classes on civics, the Constitution, early American history and our system of government as part of our school curriculum?

Absolutely. And they're busy teaching how the abortion is a right, black people are too stupid to get photo ID, and guns are a privilege. They're teaching that the US is evil and that all of the Founding fathers were slave rapists and that the United States started slavery in the US 150 years before the United States was founded.

I guess I should have been more specific: we need to teach the truth, both good and bad, about the history of the United States and the Constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is what would happen if you're a mall shooter and we are allowed to carry:

He had enough ammo to kill hundreds more.

Let the gun grabbers cry at this failed attempt.

I wish his killer would have taken photos t-bagging that bloody carcass.

Cry, gun grabbers, cry.

 

[woodwork201]

It doesn't matter what I say or want, it's what judges rule on. Given I've voted Republican most of my life, and the most conservative Republican in the primaries, I can't do much more than that. They ruled we have the right to bear arms, but not unconditionally.

So you're suggesting that the Courts get to change the Constitution? Or that they're not bound by the Constitution? No matter what the Constitution says, the Courts are our true masters and they can rule what they want. Even the Supremacy Clause doesn't trump an unelected Federal Judge?

Enforcement may be dependent on how the judges rule - the Government does have far more guns than do I. But what's constitutional doesn't depend on the guns; constitutionality depends wholly on what's in the Constitution, as amended, and the original intent of those who authored and ratified the Constitution and amendments.

Are you really going to argue that the Government gets to do anything they wish, regardless of what's in the Constitution, and it's perfectly legal and morally acceptable to you, until such a time as the Court declares otherwise?

Your rights end when what you believe can bring harm to me or my family.

No, that's not true. My rights don't end when you or I believe they can bring harm to you or your family. My rights end just before the point at which they actually bring harm, not when you think they can bring harm.

By your argument that your perception of potential harm is the limit of my rights, then you could call for all guns to be banned and confiscated. Because I've never been arrested in my life (well, as an adult or for any act of violence) yet my possession of a gun COULD bring harm to you and your family.

No; your feelings are not the defining line of someone else's rights. The potential of violence is not the limit of their rights - regardless of what the Courts say. That's why it was put into the Constitution; the Founders were explicitly taking that power away from the legislature and the judiciary. It was on purpose.

 

[woodwork201]

Constitutional carry is allowing any citizen legally allowed to possess a firearm to carry concealed in public.

If that's true, then what is the purpose of the word "constitutional" in "constitutional carry"? Wouldn't "constitutional carry" be defined as carrying as allowed and protected by the Constitution? Seriously, the Constitution has to be in the definition of constitutional carry, doesn't it?

So please tell where there are limitations in the Constitution that define that only a citizen is permitted to carry a gun or that there are other limits on who can legally carry a gun. Since we're talking constitutional carry and not congressional carry, please leave out anything done or passed by Congress. Let's focus on constitutional.

But your question is stupid. What law ever stopped murder in this country? What law ever stopped rape or armed robbery? What law stopped illegals from sneaking in? There is no such thing as a law that stopped any crime. All laws do is give the capacity to government to punish those that break our laws.

No, my question is not stupid. Your defense of unconstitutional gun laws are stupid. As you now admit, laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes.

So you're admitting that gun control has absolutely nothing at all to do with stopping crime. Since laws only give government the power to punish those who break the law, the purpose of gun control is simply to control guns. It creates a law that adds no value except for controlling a segment of the population, empowering the government against an ever-growing and expanding set of prohibited persons.

Now you openly admit that your support for gun control has nothing at all to do with crime prevention; you admit that the purpose of the gun control laws you support is wholly just simply, gun control. You admit that you are a gun controller. You accept a government power that you admit is not in the Constitution to infringe on a right that is in the Constitution. You admit that you support neither the 2nd Amendment nor, by extension, the Constitution.

Then you must certainly admit that, like Bloomberg and his AnyTown organization, you are a gun controller. The only difference, if there is any at all, between you and they is in just how much gun control you're calling for. Beyond doubt, you have more in common with Bloomberg's AnyTown and the Brady's HCI organizations than you do with the Founding Fathers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Constitutional carry is allowing any citizen legally allowed to possess a firearm to carry concealed in public.

Be careful Ray - the coward you're addressing is the True Scotsman.
He believes we have a right to own and use nuclear weapons, with said right protected by the Constitution.
Ask him - he'll tell you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gun grabbers' nemesis:

Cry, mass murder-loving, gun-grabber bitches.

 

[woodwork201]

Without qualified immunity, you won't be able to find people to take the job of a police officer. In fact it's happening already. Nobody wants to be a cop any longer and cities in our country are suffering for it. We've allowed the left to demonize police officers like the one here in Cleveland so bad and people just say F-it. I'll set my goals on something else.

And do you think that police recruiting goals should be the measure of what we let the police do to the people? Imagine how many people would sign up to be police if we just said it outright in recruiting advertisements, "Join the Cleveland Police Department and you get a license to kill. Anytime you shoot someone, we will guarantee that you cannot be charged and cannot be sued."

The idea that recruiting problems overrides the protections of the Constitution is just ludicrous.

Qualified immunity for an armed policeman on the streets is just about the most obscene, unconstitutional, made up concept in the history of the United States judicial system. The idea that the people with the guns in the faces of the population are exempt (by the Courts and not by the Congress) from the laws protecting Americans from violations of their rights is so unbelievably evil.

If there's any tyranny in our history that begins to rise to the level of the Declaration of Independence, deserving consideration of armed response in defense, it is the idea that the police can kill a person unjustly and be completely protected from any civil accountability.

If we can't get people to take the job without the license to kill, then so be it. We can go back to the more efficient, more reliable, law enforcement of watchmen with Sheriffs having a jail and delivering prisoners to and from trial but the community and the militias serving as watchmen and delivering criminals to the jail.

We can return the defense of the population back to the people, themselves. People can arm themselves and defend their own property and lives. The police can't do it anyway and, as often quoted here, the police have no obligation to protect you and you're entitled to no expectation of protection from the police. The police do the paperwork. Additionally, for now, they also deliver the bad guys to the jail but that's easily done by the people and the militia.

Some will, from what I've written, say that I'm anti-cop. I am not. Keep in mind that before modern policing, how I suggest policing might work if the police quit working is how policing did work.

The people, through their elected government, hired police to do that work for the people. But then, over time, the police quit doing what the people had traditionally done for themselves. The police used to defend their own lives and property. Then the police came in and said they'd do that job and the people can give up their guns. And the people gave up their guns. And then the police quit protecting the people and began protecting the government.

Suddenly, unexpectedly,. without the permission or approval of the people, the people found themselves without protection at all. In fact, the police do more to protect the criminal from the people than to protect the people from the criminal.

The bodega worker in NYC is proof. The police took the bodega worker to jail for defending himself. They didn't take the dead felon's girlfriend to jail for stabbing the bodega worker. They protected the criminals from the people but did not protect the bodega worker from the criminals.

So, I am not anti-cop - when the cops do the job they promised to do when modern policing was founded: protect the people from criminals. I am against cops who refuse to protect the people - such as Seattle PD watching looting and doing nothing - and don't say but the Mayor said so; they should have arrested the Mayor. I am against cops who arrest good guys in violation of their rights, knowingly so, because some politician says so.

When the cops turn "to protect and serve" to the politicians instead of the people, yes, I am against those cops. Aren't you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If that's true, then what is the purpose of the word "constitutional" in "constitutional carry"? Wouldn't "constitutional carry" be defined as carrying as allowed and protected by the Constitution? Seriously, the Constitution has to be in the definition of constitutional carry, doesn't it?

So please tell where there are limitations in the Constitution that define that only a citizen is permitted to carry a gun or that there are other limits on who can legally carry a gun. Since we're talking constitutional carry and not congressional carry, please leave out anything done or passed by Congress. Let's focus on constitutional.

Look, I didn't invent the term, I only use it because that's what everybody calls it.

No, my question is not stupid. Your defense of unconstitutional gun laws are stupid. As you now admit, laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes.

So you're admitting that gun control has absolutely nothing at all to do with stopping crime. Since laws only give government the power to punish those who break the law, the purpose of gun control is simply to control guns. It creates a law that adds no value except for controlling a segment of the population, empowering the government against an ever-growing and expanding set of prohibited persons.

Now you openly admit that your support for gun control has nothing at all to do with crime prevention; you admit that the purpose of the gun control laws you support is wholly just simply, gun control. You admit that you are a gun controller. You accept a government power that you admit is not in the Constitution to infringe on a right that is in the Constitution. You admit that you support neither the 2nd Amendment nor, by extension, the Constitution.

Then you must certainly admit that, like Bloomberg and his AnyTown organization, you are a gun controller. The only difference, if there is any at all, between you and they is in just how much gun control you're calling for. Beyond doubt, you have more in common with Bloomberg's AnyTown and the Brady's HCI organizations than you do with the Founding Fathers.

Given the fact you avoided my question about ex-cons carrying guns, people deemed mentally incompetent, people on the No Fly list, Illegals, I'm assuming you wouldn't want to see these people in possession of a gun either, which makes YOU a gun controller as well. Just because I want people to have training and able to prove they can use a firearm safely in public is hardly what I call a gun controller. Outside of it being a constitutional issue, it's no different than getting a drivers license. You get the training, get the experience, pass the tests, and then the rest of the public are assured you are capable of handling that vehicle. Or would you like to see people who never drove a car before on our roads and highways?

 

[woodwork201]

Clarence Thomas, and others, on Qualified Immunity:

Thomas says he 'doubts' qualified immunity precedent that protects police from lawsuits

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday said he disagreed with a decision by other justices to ignore a case about "qualified immunity," the Supreme Court doctrine that often gives police officers accused of egregious misconduct a legal way to avoid personal accountability.

www.foxnews.com

 

[woodwork201]

Look, I didn't invent the term, I only use it because that's what everybody calls it.



Given the fact you avoided my question about ex-cons carrying guns, people deemed mentally incompetent, people on the No Fly list, Illegals, I'm assuming you wouldn't want to see these people in possession of a gun either, which makes YOU a gun controller as well.

I answered the question clearly, explicitly, and absolutely. I said that you assumed wrong and that it was unconstitutional to prevent any free man from carrying a gun. I pointed out that the no-fly list is created without due process and any opportunity to even know you're on it or why and no opportunity to appeal it. What part of all that being unconstitutional are you not understanding? You're not even understanding that when I tell you that it's unconstitutional that means I object to it.

Any questions about how I feel about it now? No, the gun controller between us, I am saddened to say, is you.

So let's talk about illegals, since we haven't gone down that path.

The Constitution of the United States of America creates, empowers, and restricts, the government. All power they have comes from the Constitution; you've agreed to that.

The Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nowhere does the Constitution provide for an exception for citizen or non-citizen, legally here or illegally here - for the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a jury trial, the right to a lawyer, or the right to due process.

Are you suggesting that illegal aliens get none of those other rights either? If the government wants to sentence an illegal alien to 20 years in prison they can do it? They don't need an indictment, a charge, a trial, a jury, or an attorney. The prosecutor brings an illegal alien in front of the judge and says to the judge, "this guy said your wife is a whore, Judge," and the judge responds with, "20 years," and that's the end of it? The illegal alien is in prison for 20 years?

In fact, why would the prosecutor even go in front of the judge? The prosecutor gets pissed off at an illegal alien and drops him off at a Federal prison and leaves him there for life. Because illegal aliens don't have rights, and all.

Nothing in the Constitution give the government the power to treat an illegal alien any differently from any other person in the jurisdiction of the United States, whether illegal alien, non-citizen legal immigrant, or citizen.

What the Congress can do is to pass, and the President could sign into law, a law to hold illegal aliens in jail until a high-but-reasonable bail is paid and that the person posting and financing the bail just take full financial responsibility for the bail and the support, medical treatment, and other care of the illegal alien. Then the Government could arrest illegal aliens. They can hold them for reasonable bail (I think $10,000 or more, depending on specifics), releasing them only into the care of a person, family, or NGO that takes legal and financial responsibility for them and assumes the loss of the bail if they do not show up for court.

Then the government can get these cases adjudicated quickly and either allow the illegal aliens to stay or send them back whence they came. But for the period that they are not in jail, yes, they can legally have guns.

I can already hear your breath catching as you're saying to yourself, "But..but.. but.. what about MS-13?" Well, let me ask you this: Do you think a law preventing illegal aliens from having guns will keep MS-13 members coming across the border today from having guns? Well, of course you don't believe that; you already stated you don't believe that any gun law will prevent any criminal from having a gun.

The Constitution doesn't create the right and doesn't reserve the right to citizens. It acknowledges a preexisting right to keep and bear arms and that right applies to every human being on the Earth. Though many nations will infringe the right to self preservation and the right to keep and bear arms, the United States is not permitted to do so - not even to illegal aliens.

Just because I want people to have training and able to prove they can use a firearm safely in public is hardly what I call a gun controller. Outside of it being a constitutional issue, it's no different than getting a drivers license. You get the training, get the experience, pass the tests, and then the rest of the public are assured you are capable of handling that vehicle. Or would you like to see people who never drove a car before on our roads and highways?

Outside of it being a constitutional issue. Wow. Doesn't it bother you a bit to call for the government to act outside of the Constitution? And yet you cry Constitution when they do something that you don't like. You don't care a bit about the Constitution. You've openly admitted that.

Just do the honest thing. Admit that you're a gun controller. Admit that you have more in common with Biden and Bloomberg than you have with Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. It's OK. You're allowed to be an anti-2nd Amendment, anti-Constitutional, gun hobbyist who appreciates the government allowing you the privilege of having some guns for now. We don't have to agree on the importance of the Constitution to life and liberty in this land that I call the United States of America but you think of as something else (since you don't support the Constitution that made it the United States of America). You're entitled to your opinion; just be honest and admit that you are what you are: an anti-2nd Amendment, anti-Constitution, gun controller.

Supporting a limited privilege to keep and bear arms is not the same thing as supporting the 2nd Amendment.

 

[woodwork201]

At this point, I would no longer oppose returning to only property owners voting.

I'm all for it. It would take a constitutional amendment but I'd certainly support it.

 

[woodwork201]

The vigilantes were the BLM/ANTIFA assholes that ere destroying the city. The ones that took it on themselves to attack a kid because he helped put out one of their street fires.

The police advocated their responsibility to protect the public by standing down to the mob rule.

abdicated.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And do you think that police recruiting goals should be the measure of what we let the police do to the people? Imagine how many people would sign up to be police if we just said it outright in recruiting advertisements, "Join the Cleveland Police Department and you get a license to kill. Anytime you shoot someone, we will guarantee that you cannot be charged and cannot be sued."

The idea that recruiting problems overrides the protections of the Constitution is just ludicrous.

Qualified immunity for an armed policeman on the streets is just about the most obscene, unconstitutional, made up concept in the history of the United States judicial system. The idea that the people with the guns in the faces of the population are exempt (by the Courts and not by the Congress) from the laws protecting Americans from violations of their rights is so unbelievably evil.

If there's any tyranny in our history that begins to rise to the level of the Declaration of Independence, deserving consideration of armed response in defense, it is the idea that the police can kill a person unjustly and be completely protected from any civil accountability.

If we can't get people to take the job without the license to kill, then so be it. We can go back to the more efficient, more reliable, law enforcement of watchmen with Sheriffs having a jail and delivering prisoners to and from trial but the community and the militias serving as watchmen and delivering criminals to the jail.

We can return the defense of the population back to the people, themselves. People can arm themselves and defend their own property and lives. The police can't do it anyway and, as often quoted here, the police have no obligation to protect you and you're entitled to no expectation of protection from the police. The police do the paperwork. Additionally, for now, they also deliver the bad guys to the jail but that's easily done by the people and the militia.

Some will, from what I've written, say that I'm anti-cop. I am not. Keep in mind that before modern policing, how I suggest policing might work if the police quit working is how policing did work.

The people, through their elected government, hired police to do that work for the people. But then, over time, the police quit doing what the people had traditionally done for themselves. The police used to defend their own lives and property. Then the police came in and said they'd do that job and the people can give up their guns. And the people gave up their guns. And then the police quit protecting the people and began protecting the government.

Suddenly, unexpectedly,. without the permission or approval of the people, the people found themselves without protection at all. In fact, the police do more to protect the criminal from the people than to protect the people from the criminal.

The bodega worker in NYC is proof. The police took the bodega worker to jail for defending himself. They didn't take the dead felon's girlfriend to jail for stabbing the bodega worker. They protected the criminals from the people but did not protect the bodega worker from the criminals.

So, I am not anti-cop - when the cops do the job they promised to do when modern policing was founded: protect the people from criminals. I am against cops who refuse to protect the people - such as Seattle PD watching looting and doing nothing - and don't say but the Mayor said so; they should have arrested the Mayor. I am against cops who arrest good guys in violation of their rights, knowingly so, because some politician says so.

When the cops turn "to protect and serve" to the politicians instead of the people, yes, I am against those cops. Aren't you?

You have no idea what you're talking about here, so let me explain:

I go to a convenient store armed. Somebody gets in there, robs the place, and demands all customers go to the front of the store to surrender their belongings. I pull out my gun and kill the robber because I have no idea what he's going to do to me next.

The police get there, look at the video recording and determine I was in my full right to use deadly force. Now I get summoned to court for a liability lawsuit by the family of the guy I shot and killed. I have to hire expensive lawyers, take a lot of time off of work, and may be dragged into this for the next couple of years with the appeals courts. If by some chance they win, I'll be working to pay them the rest of my natural life.

It doesn't matter that the police cleared me of any wrong doing. I can still get sued by the family of the guy I killed because unlike police, I don't have qualified immunity.

Now, would you take a job like that where you can get sued right or wrong for killing a criminal in self-defense? Of course not. Nobody in their right mind would. You would be working for next to nothing with your wages garnished for the rest of your life, and who wants to do that?

This had nothing to do with a license to kill nor have I even hinted at that. Every police shooting is investigated by several administrations and if the officer did something illegal, that officer is held responsible and it's always been that way.

 

[woodwork201]

People, quit feeding the troll. He's just making fun of you all.

As for me, I've quit reading anything he says and I've quit reading any responses to what he says.

I only care enough to post this in the hope of avoiding so much wasted screen space to scroll past in order to get to anything interesting in this thread.