Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[Little-Acorn]

All these gun grabbers accomplish by making new laws restricting access and increasing taxes on arms and ammo accomplish is leaving the poor that are law abiding at the mercy of the criminals that don't care. You want to cut down on gun violence in Chicago the way to do it is make guns easier for law abiding citizens to get and carry.

After studying historical governments long and hard, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment decided it was better to have the possibility of an occasional whacko shoot a bunch of people (possible even with the weapons back then), than to give the government even the slightest authority to decide who could have a gun and who couldn't.

That remains true today.

Those who keep pushing for govt to put in place "just a few common-sense restrictions" on who can have a gun and what kind, are opening a Pandora's box that results in a lot more innocent people dying, than if they hadn't.

 

[Asclepias]

"Wait until you find out that militia was just another word for slave patrols and the only reason the 2nd amendment is a state right instead of an federal right is because the southerners forced this in order to make sure they had the right to kill slaves in the event of an uprising."

This has to be one of the most uninformed and ignorant posts I have witnessed on any board at any time.

And I am talking ignorant in the true sense of the word.

Wow, just wow.

No kidding. I'm still shaking my head. It's beyond bizarre. Nothing factual or historical which could lead to this conclusion.

For the benefit of Asclepias:

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Full essay:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

Conclusion:

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the
only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create
a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

-DAVID E. VANDERCOY, Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of Law

Thanks for providing a link. Here's mine. Word to the wise. Historians omitted or glossed over lots of things.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

 

[Indofred]

I DESPISE these cowards who go in and shoot up innocent Americans. I hope they fry his ass.
S-L-O-W-L-Y!

Yes, but that's Americans for you.
Always shooting each other.

What, you thought it was a foreigner, not an American serviceman gone wild?

 

[Black_Label]

All these gun grabbers accomplish by making new laws restricting access and increasing taxes on arms and ammo accomplish is leaving the poor that are law abiding at the mercy of the criminals that don't care. You want to cut down on gun violence in Chicago the way to do it is make guns easier for law abiding citizens to get and carry.

After studying historical governments long and hard, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment decided it was better to have the possibility of an occasional whacko shoot a bunch of people (possible even with the weapons back then), than to give the government even the slightest authority to decide who could have a gun and who couldn't.

That remains true today.

Those who keep pushing for govt to put in place "just a few common-sense restrictions" on who can have a gun and what kind, are opening a Pandora's box that results in a lot more innocent people dying, than if they hadn't.

You clearly don't have a clue, and your glenn beck books are nothing but propaganda.

Take a look back at who made the strictest gun rights and attacks on the 2nd amendment, and it came from the southern right wingers. They made it illegal for blacks to own guns and banned concealed carry as well because they were afraid all the now free slaves were going to go on a rampage killing all the white people, which never happened.

The right winger's view was that they would go after the 2nd amendment like never before, just as long as blackie can't have guns.

 

[Contumacious]

No civilian should own a gun capable of firing automatically. Civilians also should not have access to large volume magazines.

Exactly.

or firing semi-automatically.

After one too many massacres, Australia outlawed the sale and possession of all auto and semi auto weapons, including shotguns.

Single shot rifles and single shot shotguns only allowed.
Prime Minister announced a buyback, and an amnesty for all illegal weapons [handguns etc etc]

Auto and semi auto weapons, all gone...no more massacres.

Move to Australia, call them first and they will throw an extra shrimp on the barbie for you.

.

.

 

[Snouter]

A Congressional Black Caucus politician said don't let the shooting worry y'all, Washington DC is a safe city!

 

[wavingrl]

'discharged from the military following patterns of misconduct'--he was discharged in 2011

until more specific fyi is released this provides a framework for the Navy Yard shooter's motivation.

 

[namvet]

im hearing 13 dead

 

[Missouri_Mike]

All these gun grabbers accomplish by making new laws restricting access and increasing taxes on arms and ammo accomplish is leaving the poor that are law abiding at the mercy of the criminals that don't care. You want to cut down on gun violence in Chicago the way to do it is make guns easier for law abiding citizens to get and carry.

After studying historical governments long and hard, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment decided it was better to have the possibility of an occasional whacko shoot a bunch of people (possible even with the weapons back then), than to give the government even the slightest authority to decide who could have a gun and who couldn't.

That remains true today.

Those who keep pushing for govt to put in place "just a few common-sense restrictions" on who can have a gun and what kind, are opening a Pandora's box that results in a lot more innocent people dying, than if they hadn't.

You clearly don't have a clue, and your glenn beck books are nothing but propaganda.

Take a look back at who made the strictest gun rights and attacks on the 2nd amendment, and it came from the southern right wingers. They made it illegal for blacks to own guns and banned concealed carry as well because they were afraid all the now free slaves were going to go on a rampage killing all the white people, which never happened.

The right winger's view was that they would go after the 2nd amendment like never before, just as long as blackie can't have guns.

It was Democrats that wanted the restrictions, don't let facts trip you up.

You did prove our point though. The reason to take gun rights away was to suppress people. No different than it would be today if we allow people like you to take our rights away. Crazy how that works isn't it?

 

[Black_Label]

After studying historical governments long and hard, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment decided it was better to have the possibility of an occasional whacko shoot a bunch of people (possible even with the weapons back then), than to give the government even the slightest authority to decide who could have a gun and who couldn't.

That remains true today.

Those who keep pushing for govt to put in place "just a few common-sense restrictions" on who can have a gun and what kind, are opening a Pandora's box that results in a lot more innocent people dying, than if they hadn't.

You clearly don't have a clue, and your glenn beck books are nothing but propaganda.

Take a look back at who made the strictest gun rights and attacks on the 2nd amendment, and it came from the southern right wingers. They made it illegal for blacks to own guns and banned concealed carry as well because they were afraid all the now free slaves were going to go on a rampage killing all the white people, which never happened.

The right winger's view was that they would go after the 2nd amendment like never before, just as long as blackie can't have guns.

It was Democrats that wanted the restrictions, don't let facts trip you up.

You did prove our point though. The reason to take gun rights away was to suppress people. No different than it would be today if we allow people like you to take our rights away. Crazy how that works isn't it?

It was the southern right wingers. Just like today, they hate the constitution and want big government restrictions over everyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Wait until you find out that militia was just another word for slave patrols and the only reason the 2nd amendment is a state right instead of an federal right is because the southerners forced this in order to make sure they had the right to kill slaves in the event of an uprising."

This has to be one of the most uninformed and ignorant posts I have witnessed on any board at any time.

And I am talking ignorant in the true sense of the word.

Wow, just wow.

No kidding. I'm still shaking my head. It's beyond bizarre. Nothing factual or historical which could lead to this conclusion.

For the benefit of Asclepias:

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Full essay:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

Conclusion:

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the
only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create
a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

-DAVID E. VANDERCOY, Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of Law

Thanks for providing a link. Here's mine. Word to the wise. Historians omitted or glossed over lots of things.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Truth out dot org? You consider that a reliable source?

Tell you what, just so that your brain doesn't fart if I try to explain why no legitimate law article would be written using a pseudonym, let us conclude that you are 100% right. I will then switch my defense of the right to keep and bear arms to the 14th Amendment, which was clearly ratified with the intention of arming former slaves so they could fight off the whites who wanted to oppress them. Unfortunately, assholes like you, argued that it did apply to the states, which allowed the states to prohibit people from owning guns without a background check that involved skin color. By continuing to argue that there is no personal right to bear arms, even for the descendents of slaves, you are a racist, not me.

 

[williepete]

Thanks for providing a link. Here's mine. Word to the wise. Historians omitted or glossed over lots of things.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

I see you didn't have enough time to read Professor Vandercoy's essay nor his copious reference material before you shot back. (Less than 10 minutes). I did take the time to read yours. Not meaning to insult, but to call it revisionist hogwash is an insult to hogwash. I appreciate your posting an opinion piece that supports your position. History and facts prevent me from forming the same opinion from the piece you posted. I'll stick with the conclusions of Professor Vandercoy's essay and references, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers and my 30 years of studying history.

That this tragedy has debased so quickly to an anti-rights debate is as predictable as it is sad. 13 dead and the cause is still unknown. Police got there in minutes, engaged the shooter and stopped him from killing more. Thanks to the first responders and prayers for the grieving families.

 

[laughinReaper]

im hearing 13 dead

Well at least we won't have to pay for this nutjobs trial.

My Sympathies to the families who lost thier loved ones.

 

[JoeB131]

Two things we are going to find out about this guy by Friday.

1) Everyone in his life knew he was seriously disturbed with serious problems.

2) Despite that it was much too easy for him to get a gun.

 

[Synthaholic]

Liberals have a bad way of being insensitive in times of tragedy. Boston, Fort Hood, Tuscon, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Washington D.C. ... they have literally no shame about them.

Yeah - wingnuts are soooo sensitive!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/287295-chicago-s-black-mob-violence.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/308625-7-year-old-shot-last-night-in-chicago.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-students-viciously-beat-a-white-student.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...eekend-in-chicago-including-a-6-year-old.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-the-faces-of-the-chicago-murder-victims.html



Don't you get tired of me making you look like a fool? (I don't! )

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You clearly don't have a clue, and your glenn beck books are nothing but propaganda.

Take a look back at who made the strictest gun rights and attacks on the 2nd amendment, and it came from the southern right wingers. They made it illegal for blacks to own guns and banned concealed carry as well because they were afraid all the now free slaves were going to go on a rampage killing all the white people, which never happened.

The right winger's view was that they would go after the 2nd amendment like never before, just as long as blackie can't have guns.

It was Democrats that wanted the restrictions, don't let facts trip you up.

You did prove our point though. The reason to take gun rights away was to suppress people. No different than it would be today if we allow people like you to take our rights away. Crazy how that works isn't it?

It was the southern right wingers. Just like today, they hate the constitution and want big government restrictions over everyone.

Southern right wingers are the reason blacks can own guns in DC and Chicago, which are run by Northern left wingers..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Two things we are going to find out about this guy by Friday.

1) Everyone in his life knew he was seriously disturbed with serious problems.

2) Despite that it was much too easy for him to get a gun.

Why do you want to wait until Friday to find that out?

 

[Synthaholic]

No civilian should own a gun capable of firing automatically. If you have one you should be trained and certified in its use. Civilians also should not have access to large volume magazines.

Why?

What was the purpose of the Constitution, QW?

 

[Sunshine]

It was Democrats that wanted the restrictions, don't let facts trip you up.

You did prove our point though. The reason to take gun rights away was to suppress people. No different than it would be today if we allow people like you to take our rights away. Crazy how that works isn't it?

It was the southern right wingers. Just like today, they hate the constitution and want big government restrictions over everyone.

Southern right wingers are the reason blacks can own guns in DC and Chicago, which are run by Northern left wingers..

They have that logic thingy down to an art, don't they?

 

[JoeB131]

Two things we are going to find out about this guy by Friday.

1) Everyone in his life knew he was seriously disturbed with serious problems.

2) Despite that it was much too easy for him to get a gun.

Why do you want to wait until Friday to find that out?

I'm giving them enough time to start unwinding this guy's past.

Usually takes about three days to find all his friends to tell us he was nuts, and the gun store admitting they sold him a small arsenal despite that quirky look in his eye.