Anti-gun "March for our Lives" tmrw the 24th. 100s of armed ppl to protect marchers

[Bush92]

Bush92, post: 19571936

Soros is probably footing the bill.

Probably? Why not present a fact instead of BS.

Donated money to Democrats. It will come out that he funded this just as he funded BLM.

 

[OldLady]

Bush92, post: 19571936

Soros is probably footing the bill.

Probably? Why not present a fact instead of BS.

Donated money to Democrats. It will come out that he funded this just as he funded BLM.

So?

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem, post: 19571543

It's not a matter of percentages but defending a defining principle.

I understand the defining principle of the Second Amendment in the context of the period in which it was written.

I don't accept the defining principle as presented in the terms of political power by the NRA and civilian assault rifle enthusiasts everywhere.

They are extremists and abusers of the Second Amendment by insisting that human killing combat style weapons are protected by the Second Amendment for their entertainment

And your principles argument has been tossed out the window because of the fact that machine guns are banned and there is no resistance from the NRA as a matter of principle or necessity to remove a ban that you have to believe violates what you accept as principles.

I'm am glad to have this discussion with an intelligent person on the assault rifle issue but I do not wish to surrender that you are the final authority on interpretation of a very short paragraph in the Bill of Rights that was addressing a right in the context of a well organized militia.

You need to tell me why the government has a machine gun ban in place and why that ban does not violate your definition of Second Amendment principle.

No NotfooledbyW
If NRA members don't protest but AGREE with banning some types
that doesn't mean they HAVE to agree to OTHER types.

I know many prochoice advocates and groups that generally "agree" with currenty laws restricting legal abortions to 3 months.

But that doesn't mean they consent to other restrictions that infringe on their FREEDOM to choose, to agree or to dissent.

You do bring up a key point:
our CONSENT is the key factor here.
Just because someone consents to SOME terms and conditions,
DOES NOT mean they agree to have govt dictate FOR THEM in all cases!

If we all AGREE to "believe in Equal Justice Under Law"
that's technically a FAITH BASED BELIEF.
Justice is not proven to exist and has never been established for "all people under law"

We allow that slogan to be plastered on the Supreme Court building, which is govt property.

Are you saying that because people allow a faith based statement
on public property, that those same people "must agree" to govt establishing OTHER faith based principles?

People do not consent to the same things.
People do not consent to prayers in schools but then want LGBT beliefs and practices taught.
Other people don't want evolution or LGBT policies in schools or govt, but want creation or gun rights or other things taught.

So NotfooledbyW people will AGREE to some restrictions
while arguing others are violating their rights and liberties, representation and due process.

Your argument reminds me of the guilt trips or pressure I've seen guys use.
They basically pressure a woman that because she consents to have relations with her boyfriend, that means she should agree to have sex with them!
Even in the case of marital rape and abuse, just because the wife agrees to marry
the man and have sexual relations, doesn't give him the right to rape her by forcing
her to have sex against her will.

No, just because someone consents in one case
does not mean they consent to other cases!

This is selfish dictation of one person's beliefs or expectations
on what other people choose to consent or dissent to.

This is why I am saying people need to separate political beliefs from govt.
Otherwise it makes NO SENSE that liberals want "freedom of choice"
when it comes to abortion, then mandate health care that requires and penalized people
and deprives them of free choice.

People contradict themselves when it comes to BELIEFS.
so that's why the laws limit govt not to prohibit nor establish them!

 

[2aguy]

So who would attack a bunch of children?

Oh, that's right. Republicans. I forgot.

It's democrats who support abortion and child- molesting.

And sexual assault....look at how they run their workplaces, in hollywood and in democrat news organizations...

 

[basquebromance]

"Sorry, my God-given right to own a firearm isn't up for debate." - Wacky Joe Walsh

 

[2aguy]

emilynghiem, post: 19571543

It's not a matter of percentages but defending a defining principle.

I understand the defining principle of the Second Amendment in the context of the period in which it was written.

I don't accept the defining principle as presented in the terms of political power by the NRA and civilian assault rifle enthusiasts everywhere.

They are extremists and abusers of the Second Amendment by insisting that human killing combat style weapons are protected by the Second Amendment for their entertainment

And your principles argument has been tossed out the window because of the fact that machine guns are banned and there is no resistance from the NRA as a matter of principle or necessity to remove a ban that you have to believe violates what you accept as principles.

I'm am glad to have this discussion with an intelligent person on the assault rifle issue but I do not wish to surrender that you are the final authority on interpretation of a very short paragraph in the Bill of Rights that was addressing a right in the context of a well organized militia.

You need to tell me why the government has a machine gun ban in place and why that ban does not violate your definition of Second Amendment principle.

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon, it is not a weapon of war, it has never been used by the military and it has never been in a war....it is a semi auto rifle which is no different from any other rifle that is not a bolt action, lever action or pump action rifle.....there are over 8 million of them in private hands....and they are used in crime for murder less than knives, clubs and empty hands....

In fact, mass public shooters murder fewer people each year than lawn mowers kill....dittos cars...

I don't accept the defining principle as presented in the terms of political power by the NRA and civilian assault rifle enthusiasts everywhere.

These rifles are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment.....as per the District of Columbia v. Heller decision.....and reinforced by subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts........so no, it isn't political and it isn't the NRA........

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

A machine gun is a crew served weapon.....that means it requires more than one person to operate it effectively...

And then you have the follow up to Heller, where the court bitch slapped the 4th Circuit court for trying to ban stun guns...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[2aguy]

ShootSpeeders, post: 19571627

So make up your mind. Are you saying non-assault rifles are ok?

I don't have to make up my mind. Learn to read. I have never called for a ban beyond weapons that are designed for combat and fighting an enemy with similar weapons.

The AR-15 was not designed for combat....do you know what was? The 6 shot revolver, the Lever action rifle, the bolt action rifle was the military weapon for every country during World War 1 and 2, and the pump action shotgun is a weapon used by our military today........

 

[2aguy]

No...these kids need protection because law enforcement at the local, state and federal level failed them.....with specific threats from the nut case the local police and the FBI were warned about......now they are out marching without understanding the issue.....

These are stupid drunken teenagers. Nobody really cares what they say.

No, it's you nobody cares to listen to. These are smart, dedicated kids led by other smart freaked out kids who had to watch their friends and classmates die a month ago. They have plenty to say and I'm ashamed it took them to get this country moving, but I'm terribly glad it finally has.

They are not smart kids....if they were they would know history and what happens when civilians are disarmed by their governments....mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.....

 

[emilynghiem]

Wonder if Antifa will infiltrate and scream chants about blowing up the White House?

Dear Bush92
I think you are confusing Antifa with Madonna!

Same thing. Both hate America.

And both think the same of us
that Trump and you and me as supporters "hate" others

This may be true of you, but I don't
So just because someone else thinks that
doesn't make it true. Just because you think
people hate America doesn't make it true.

What they hate is racism and oppression.
They may BLAME it on White nationalists
and conservatives like Trump, me or you,
but what they HATE is the same problems we hate too.
It's not ALL America or Americans it's really
certain problems which are MISDIRECTED and blamed on groups.

Because that's what sells in the media.
You have to name a visual target not some abstract issue.

That's why I advise DON'T take the HATE BAIT.
This feeds the "liberal media" that exploits that to target groups against groups.
Stick to the CONSTITUTIONAL issues and solutions.
These don't have visuals, and that's why the media has no power to manipulate
that. The people have the power to learn, enforce and stick to LAWS
that protect us. Not feel like victims and go blame groups.

That's liberal whiny strategy to get people to vote and depend on party to run govt.

When we get away from blaming and hating on groups as "easy targets"
we stop the media's power over people to incite mob mentality.

We dismantle this machine and get people focused on
how to stop the oppression and abuse we all hate so much!

It isn't you or me causing it. It isn't Trump.
The abuses of law and govt come from disempowering people
instead of empowering us to invoke the laws and check our own govt ourselves!
Regardless what party we're with. Nobody wants this oppression of our beliefs.
We HATE it. but we take the media shortcut of "blaming the other party"
when it's really up to the people, to fix this problem ourselves.
Not depend on Trump or party or other people inside or outside govt.

When we take back that responsibility, we become equally
empowered as Trump or Cruz, like how Nader wrote his own legislation.
And so did the residents in my neighborhood who co authored federal
laws reforming public housing to be locally managed by democratically
elected councils and passed that into the HOPE VI act. a handful of
community leaders and local residents did that. And so can anyone.

Not by hating blaming or depending on other people or groups.

But taking the ideas we want for govt and putting them into
laws and actions ourselves. That's the next step and stage
of political development our country is going through.

We won't get there by dividing and fighting each other,
but by organizing in groups and working in teams.
And investing our time attention and resources DIRECTLY
into local solutions, not taking the hate bait in media and throwing millions
of our dollars at political campaigns or govt waste that isn't solving anything.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Armed cops will be there and of course politicians and celebs will have their armed bodyguards.

Exactly. So my question to those who are there is this, what is the actual point to this "march" if you are okay with anyone packing heat getting to be in the picture?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Or are they trying to say that bad people packing heat will only make good people who pack heat as well become even more prepared?

 

[Bush92]

Bush92, post: 19571936

Soros is probably footing the bill.

Probably? Why not present a fact instead of BS.

Donated money to Democrats. It will come out that he funded this just as he funded BLM.

So?

So then it’s not spontaneous but instead is a political rally...nothing more.

 

[debbiedowner]

So who would attack a bunch of children?

Oh, that's right. Republicans. I forgot.

So who would attack a bunch of children?

Oh, that's right. Republicans. I forgot.

It's democrats who support abortion and child- molesting.

I bet some of you watching these kids wished you would have supported abortion, am I right? They're going to get your guns.

 

[debbiedowner]

Bush92, post: 19571936

Soros is probably footing the bill.

Probably? Why not present a fact instead of BS.

Donated money to Democrats. It will come out that he funded this just as he funded BLM.

It's all over the net who funded it and it wasn't your boogeyman.

 

[miketx]

Armed cops will be there and of course politicians and celebs will have their armed bodyguards.

Congressional Democrats plan to join 'March for Our Lives' in Washington and at home

march 23 2018 Many of the Democrats who've been urging stricter gun control legislation will join throngs of students Saturday as they gather in Washington and elsewhere for the "March for Our Lives" demonstration.

The event is expected to the biggest yet in a string of rallies and protests nationwide since a gunman killed 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Florida, last month. The shooting sparked an unprecedented wave of student-led activism calling for more gun control and school safety measures.

Saturday's march, which starts at noon, come a day after Congress passed a massive spending bill that included a large measure to increase security at schools, as well as legislation that would better enforce reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill also aims to clarify that the Centers for Disease Control can conduct research on gun violence.

I'm sure the police will be there - since it's DC, I'm sure a number of different types of police will be there (Metro, Parks, Secret Service, Capitol, etc...).

But I've never understood you guy's weird thing about celebrities with "armed bodyguards". You know that's not a thing, right?

It shows the hypocrisy of gun control types. They don't want you to have a gun for defense, but they have armed body guards.

 

[debbiedowner]

I do believe there are more protesters around the nation today than there was for the Vietnam war.

 

[emilynghiem]

ShootSpeeders, post: 19571627

So make up your mind. Are you saying non-assault rifles are ok?

I don't have to make up my mind. Learn to read. I have never called for a ban beyond weapons that are designed for combat and fighting an enemy with similar weapons.

Dear NotfooledbyW
Why ban these, why not require that military
level weapons require military level Training and OATH to defend laws not violate them.

We require police and vets to take both Training and Oath
(as well as screening for mental health issues or disability).

Why not hold citizens to the same standards
before being authorized to enforce laws with such weapons?

 

[debbiedowner]

Hell, they're are more in D.C. today than for the inauguration.

 

[emilynghiem]

jon_berzerk, post: 19573688

the same people who claim the cops are pigs and killers

Name some names liar.

These teens are calling BS on liars like you. That's why this movenent has momentum to be carried to the voting booth.

You gun nuts percentages are small.

You have been granted political power that far exceeds your value to society.

That's BS.

fuck you liar

name one sure

colin kaepernick ya jack ass

Colin Kaepernick - Police Pig Socks

Nowhere did kaepernick call cops pigs and killers. And kaepernick is not leading the protests being discussed.

You said the 'same people' protesting called cops pigs and liars and you cannot name one.

You lied. You are caught.

We call BS on you.

Okay jon_berzerk and also miketx
I think NotfooledbyW 's point is that
it's not the EXACT SAME INDIVIDUALS in both protests.
but these are being blamed collectively as one group as an identity
for bitching purposes.

It's easier to blame a whole group,
then throw all the pieces into one pot and hate that whole mix as one problem.
Then take all that anti-left rejection to get people to go to the polls and vote.

This doesn't solve the problems as I'd like to see.
And what NotfooledbyW is saying is that it's
illogical (and also when liberals do that to get
voters to the polls to oppose all conservatives/RW/GOP as the enemy)

It's unproductive and divisive when EITHER group
blacklists the whole other side COLLECTIVELY
with this salad of wrongs and saying THEY are to blame!

miketx you brought up security guards.
How many of these actual students or protestors
can afford their own security guards? Who is THEY

Both sides do this, for political expedience and points.

But does it motivate anyone to change and fix the problems?

If none of US responds to rejection, as individuals or as groups,
what do we hope to achieve by doing this to others?

Are we going to change anything
by doing things the same way over and over?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hell, they're are more in D.C. today than for the inauguration.

Great debbiedowner
but changing policies in schools and districts
takes meeting locally. If students want to organize
national reforms, why not set up the Astrodome in Houston TX
as a people's Congress. Let people from any party meet,
organize their own platforms and policies they want to fund,
and implement and pay for this programs themselves!
That will keep political beliefs and fights out of govt,
and keep costs of programs off taxpayers
except those who voluntarily agree to pay for them.

Why not use local schools to democratize the govt process?

Teach kids and their parents the Constitutional laws
and limits on each level and area of govt.

And have local party and govt leaders MENTOR them
to enact their own policies locally. If programs work
locally, then these can be freely adopted and replicated
statewide and nationally.

Not everything has to be about DC.

All districts and cities need to be self governing first.
The last thing we need to teach students is to depend
on just the people in Washington. That's not teaching
independent thought, responsibility and self-government,
that's teaching oppression and abuse by concentrating
disproportionate power in the hands of people outside
your reach of representation.

Instead the point and purpose of Constitutional laws
is to LIMIT the duties of federal govt and MAXIMIZE
the authority of the people at the state and local/individual levels.

Are kids being taught this? Or parents how to invoke
and enforce our Constitutional authority? Much less EXERCISE our rights directly?

Are we only being taught the power of govt is in DC
and we can only be heard by marching in the media.

What do we want to teach our kids?
To learn the laws, and how to enforce them by exercising and upholding them yourself?
Where you become equally powerful as anyone else in govt under the Constitution?

Or that people and taxpayers are victims to whatever gets passed into law.
So the most we can do is yell and scream by voting or protesting
to get media attention. And after that, all the power to decide laws
belongs to officials in govt and whatever majority rule or courts decide "for us"???

Sorry but what I teach is that whatever gets passed has to
meet Constitutional standards and carry CONSENT of the people,
or it's taxation without representation and we can't be forced to
pay for any policy or program that violates our beliefs and consent.

If officials abuse govt to pass unconstitutional laws or cost
taxpayers for unauthorized spending, THOSE individuals
and/or the parties responsible for electing them and pushing
unlawful actions or costs, should be held accountable to pay those costs.
Not the taxpayers who are not represented and didn't authorize that!

I would call this teaching Civil Obedience instead of disobedience.
If people agree to follow Constitutional laws and limits, then we
invoke authority of law. And that's where we enforce the rights
to choose and pay for the programs we believe in, by agreement
to take on that responsibility directly.

Any person or group forcing policies or costs onto anyone else
who DISAGREES and doesn't believe or consent to those programs
is violating basic principles of due process, where someone needs
to be convicted of a crime before being penalized by paying costs
or losing liberty or both.

You don't punish taxpayers just because you don't agree with them
or they don't agree with you.

To teach kids government ethics and responsibility, I'd start with
this premise about no taxation without representation. Or in this
case separation of policies and funding where people don't agree
and don't believe in the same things. This way, by separating,
you respect the equal beliefs and free choice of all people regardless
of creed, and don't violate any rights or discriminate against any person or group!

www.ethics-commission.net

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If NRA members don't protest but AGREE with banning some types
that doesn't mean they HAVE to agree to OTHER types.

They most certainly do. They have denied there is a 'principle' that decides because they have let 'common sense' decide on the machine gun ban.

It's all or none when using the 'principle' argument.

I an not using the 'principles' argument because I believe the Second Amendment is open to a 'common sense' argument because it is more vague

And in this case the majority rules. If we raise the bar to where 'weapons for war' includes assault rifles then so be it.

They will stop being manufactured, glorified and sold for profit at the expense of bass shooting victims.

In principle I believe innocent unarmed Americans right to life deserves higher priority than the right for NRA types to play with weapons of war as toys.