Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[2aguy]

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

When was the last time a machine gun was used in a murder?

Exactly! Thank you. Seems like the restrictions have done some good

OK keep telling yourself that.

I don't think you know what a machine gun is.

I’m not gonna ya word games with you. I’m speaking to automatic weapons which were used a bunch in the 80s. Now you don’t hear about them. That’s a good thing

Automatic weapons were not used a bunch in the 80s....I would like to see some links.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

I'm not the one who is confused

Inalienable or natural rights do not have to be sanctioned by government as they exist within each person

Yes, you are the one confused. Private justice is not public or social justice. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Self defense is not private justice.

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

No it is not. You are confusing vigilantism with self defense

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but fuck off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

No the second is about the right of the PEOPLE

Only in right wing fantasy. There is No Thing concerning the whole and entire concept of natural rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

That is the subject of the second

 

[Skull Pilot]

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

When was the last time a machine gun was used in a murder?

Exactly! Thank you. Seems like the restrictions have done some good

OK keep telling yourself that.

I don't think you know what a machine gun is.

I’m not gonna ya word games with you. I’m speaking to automatic weapons which were used a bunch in the 80s. Now you don’t hear about them. That’s a good thing

Automatic weapons were NOT used "a bunch" in the 80's

Go ahead and post links to these murders in the 80's committed with automatic weapons.

 

[sakinago]

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

When was the last time a machine gun was used in a murder?

Exactly! Thank you. Seems like the restrictions have done some good

OK keep telling yourself that.

I don't think you know what a machine gun is.

I’m not gonna ya word games with you. I’m speaking to automatic weapons which were used a bunch in the 80s. Now you don’t hear about them. That’s a good thing

Even in the drug warlord crime hay day before the 1984 law, automatics made up less than 1% of all gun crimes...So false. Since, there has only been 2 crimes committed by legally registered automatic weapons, one of them was a cop.

 

[CowboyTed]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

Hang on it is too soon to talk about this... Like it is still too soon to talk about the Las Vegas Shooting...

 

[sakinago]

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

It wasn’t at all, and they learned that during the revolution that took place before the creation of the 2nd amendment, that militias were terrible when going up against regular armies, yet they still banned a standing army...why did they ban a standing army that’s immensely more effective at a common defense?

And agian your not even acknowledging the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, not the right of certain well trained people, not the right of the government, not the right of the collective, the people, which refers to all individuals under jurisdiction.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union. They are mutually incompatible.

Says who, they don’t have an obligation, they are civilian ran. And it’s still a natural right to form up groups and do whatever you please in those groups as long as you’re not hurting anyone else, perhaps maybe a militia group...that’s a natural right haha. Again you have zero clue what natural rights are. And the legislative branch is charged with the common defense, article 1 section 8, good job pointing that out. The militia was always a local civilian group that the state (whether fed, or state government) had no control over. If they did have control over them, why not just use a standing army instead? I’ve asked you like 20 questions at this point that you have no answer for, instead you just parrot your incorrect suppositions over and over. You need to ask your professor to give you lots of these incorrect suppositions because you’re running out of them.

The governor is commander in chief of the militia; our Second Amendment applies to the militia of the State and of the United States.

No genius, they were elected by the other members of that specific militia. Nowadays we have a national guard, which in the early 1900s we called the organized militia (as well as national guard), but it NEVER replaced or was intended to replace the standard MILITIA. And the “unorganized” militia still exist today. Hahaha so there goes your entire point right out the window.

You just keep proving how little you know on the matter, and you’ll make stuff up just because you NEED to be right for your ego.

 

[sakinago]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but fuck off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

I’ll ask this for the 50th time IF IT WAS ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, AND A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...WHY DID THEY NOT USE A STANDING ARMY VS A BUNCH OF LITTLE GROUPS THAT MET UP EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, ELECTED THEIR OWN BUDDIES TO LEAD THEM??? A standing army is much more effective than a milita. The founders already knew this after the revolution. Militias back then were in no way shape or form “well regulated” like you seem to imagine. They meet whenever, elected their own leaders, and brought their own guns and ammo, no matter how shitty they were, and were very disorganized. USING THEM IN THE REVELOUTION WAS LIKE HERDING CATS, AND THEN TRYING TO HERD THOSE CATS AT A VERY WELL TRAINED ARMY THEY WERE AFRAID OF, AND HOPING THEY KILLED SOME OF THEM. So why entrust the “security of the free state,” to the herd of cats, vs the standing army that actually won the revolution.

dude, even Texas was not that slow.

It is about the security of a free State; it says so in our Second Amendment.

Yea and I’m asking why did they not go with a standing army??? I’ve asked this many times, you keep dancing around it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

What if that person is trying to kill you?

There is no such thing as "public justice" in American Jurisprudence. From which asshole did you pull that?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have a Second Amendment.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

I see you misplaced a comma. Did you mean "only the right wing" or did you mean "only, the right wing"?

Let's go eat grandma.

or

Let's go eat, grandma.

Commas are meant to clarify.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

I'm not the one who is confused

Inalienable or natural rights do not have to be sanctioned by government as they exist within each person

Yes, you are the one confused. Private justice is not public or social justice. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Self defense is not private justice.

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

No it is not. You are confusing vigilantism with self defense

natural rights for private citizens equals private justice not social justice.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Godboy]

What? Trucks aren’t designed to kill people but guns are? Absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard. As if the designers intended use of an object somehow determines weather it should be considered lethal or not. Both are deadly, and in the wrongs hands will kill people. I suppose if I design a gun intended for target practice it magically becomes unable to penetrate human flesh. If you have a point to make, try a sprinkle of logic.

Okay. Guns are designed to kill people. when the first gun was made, it was made to kill another person, because it was more efficient than a sword or arrow.

Trucks are designed to move heavy loads from one place to another. When the first truck was made, that's what it was designed for.

That's the difference.

This isn't complicated.

Why exactly should anyone care about this distinction?

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but fuck off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

No the second is about the right of the PEOPLE

Only in right wing fantasy. There is No Thing concerning the whole and entire concept of natural rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

That is the subject of the second

No, it isn't. Just lousy right wing, reading comprehension?

The Intent and Purpose Clause, leads the way.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

dude, even Texas was not that slow.

If that is intended a some sort of insult, the joke is on you. I am a native Texas and I am Uganda-Raping you in this discussion. Texans are quicker than you, at least.

It is about the security of a free State; it says so in our Second Amendment.

So, the 2nd Amendment was only established for the security of a free state. It had nothing to do with NOT infringing on the right of the people? Is that really the argument you are going for?

Again:

A well-balanced diet, being necessary for good health, the right of the people to obtain and eat fruits and vegetables shall not be infringed.

The purpose of that statement is securing a well-balanced diet, or was it to make sure that people had the right to fruits and vegetables?

Will you please use logic in your response, and not your bullshit buzzphrases?

 

[danielpalos]

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

It wasn’t at all, and they learned that during the revolution that took place before the creation of the 2nd amendment, that militias were terrible when going up against regular armies, yet they still banned a standing army...why did they ban a standing army that’s immensely more effective at a common defense?

And agian your not even acknowledging the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, not the right of certain well trained people, not the right of the government, not the right of the collective, the people, which refers to all individuals under jurisdiction.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union. They are mutually incompatible.

Says who, they don’t have an obligation, they are civilian ran. And it’s still a natural right to form up groups and do whatever you please in those groups as long as you’re not hurting anyone else, perhaps maybe a militia group...that’s a natural right haha. Again you have zero clue what natural rights are. And the legislative branch is charged with the common defense, article 1 section 8, good job pointing that out. The militia was always a local civilian group that the state (whether fed, or state government) had no control over. If they did have control over them, why not just use a standing army instead? I’ve asked you like 20 questions at this point that you have no answer for, instead you just parrot your incorrect suppositions over and over. You need to ask your professor to give you lots of these incorrect suppositions because you’re running out of them.

The governor is commander in chief of the militia; our Second Amendment applies to the militia of the State and of the United States.

No genius, they were elected by the other members of that specific militia. Nowadays we have a national guard, which in the early 1900s we called the organized militia (as well as national guard), but it NEVER replaced or was intended to replace the standard MILITIA. And the “unorganized” militia still exist today. Hahaha so there goes your entire point right out the window.

You just keep proving how little you know on the matter, and you’ll make stuff up just because you NEED to be right for your ego.

dude; no wonder the right wing has nothing but repeal; appeals to ignorance does that.

this is the law of the land:

The governor is commander in chief of the State militia; our Second Amendment applies to the militia of the State and of the United States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but fuck off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

I’ll ask this for the 50th time IF IT WAS ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, AND A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...WHY DID THEY NOT USE A STANDING ARMY VS A BUNCH OF LITTLE GROUPS THAT MET UP EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, ELECTED THEIR OWN BUDDIES TO LEAD THEM??? A standing army is much more effective than a milita. The founders already knew this after the revolution. Militias back then were in no way shape or form “well regulated” like you seem to imagine. They meet whenever, elected their own leaders, and brought their own guns and ammo, no matter how shitty they were, and were very disorganized. USING THEM IN THE REVELOUTION WAS LIKE HERDING CATS, AND THEN TRYING TO HERD THOSE CATS AT A VERY WELL TRAINED ARMY THEY WERE AFRAID OF, AND HOPING THEY KILLED SOME OF THEM. So why entrust the “security of the free state,” to the herd of cats, vs the standing army that actually won the revolution.

dude, even Texas was not that slow.

It is about the security of a free State; it says so in our Second Amendment.

Yea and I’m asking why did they not go with a standing army??? I’ve asked this many times, you keep dancing around it.

I already told you. It did not make sense to you then. It is about the command economics and the cost of our exorbitantly expensive superpower; and the right wing having a Republican Doctrine.

Now do you understand, dear.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, it isn't. Just lousy right wing, reading comprehension?

The Intent and Purpose Clause, leads the way.

Intent and purpose do not change the restriction. You seem to have reading comprehension issues.

Again....


Well-balanced diet is necessary, people have the right to fruits and vegetables.

What does that actually DO???

(say "it restricts the fed gov from infringing on the people's rights." You can do it.)

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

What if that person is trying to kill you?

There is no such thing as "public justice" in American Jurisprudence. From which asshole did you pull that?

self defense is private justice, sanctioned by law.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

I see you misplaced a comma. Did you mean "only the right wing" or did you mean "only, the right wing"?

Let's go eat grandma.

or

Let's go eat, grandma.

Commas are meant to clarify.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I already told you. It did not make sense to you then. It is about the command economics and the cost of our exorbitantly expensive superpower; and the right wing having a Republican Doctrine.

Now do you understand, dear.

I have give COUNTLESS quotes from Founders showing that they feared a standing army. Economics may have been a factor, but their words do not indicate such. They feared the tyranny that a professional standing army could cause.

Do you want me to fill up this thread with more quotes? I don't want to have to beat your ass AGAIN, but I will. You are decidedly WRONG on the economics angle.