Guns

[hadit]

Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit. Handguns and rifles in the UK have certain dimensions etc.. not just just willful crap you follow. Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing, per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't).

The police are made up of police and certain officers trained to use firearms. You_re police are fucking inept, all have a gun and shoot anything that moves because they're thick as fuck.

It appears that you are manifestly ignorant about life in the United States.

 

[Woodznutz]

There is crime across all demographics. Where have you been?

It's the nature of the crime and of the criminals.

 

[Captain Caveman]

It appears that you are manifestly ignorant about life in the United States.

It appears you're ignorant of the whole planet.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It ceases to be a right when it requires someone else to take action to give it to you.

Right to free speech = you can stand on a street corner and bellow whatever you want about a politician.
Not right to free speech = demanding that the city set up a sound system and stage and TV cameras broadcast what you have to say.

Right to bear arms = you can buy and own a firearm.
Not right to bear arms = demanding that the government provide you a firearm.

That's why there is no right to healthcare, because healthcare requires people to manufacture drugs and surgical implements, build hospitals, train doctors and nurses, etc.

A right is something you cannot be prevented from doing.

"It ceases to be a right when it requires someone else to take action to give it to you."

Er... no. All rights require someone to take action so that you can have it. One look at countries with no rights, like China, show this.

Rights are.... get this.... LIMITATIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

The Magna Carta, where it all started in 1215. It was a power grab by the rich and powerful in England against the monarch King John.
Then came the English Bill of Rights which was another power grab. It limited the power of the new monarchs that the rich and powerful were putting on the throne.

Then came the US bill of rights. A part of the process of taking power from the English monarch and giving it to Americans. These Americans were worried about power. Hence why there is a separation of powers in the US Constitution and then the Bill of Rights.

The right to free speech is literally a limit on what the government can do to people. A person can stand on a street corner and shout whatever they like. Unless of course it's libel, treason etc etc.
A person can demand the government sets up a sound system for them. Doesn't mean the government is going to provide it, but that falls right in to freedom of speech.

When it comes to guns, the right to KEEP ARMS is the right to own guns. The right to BEAR ARMS is the right to be in the militia.

It makes sense. Firstly because this is what the Founding Fathers said, and secondly because this is how you protect the militia, which is the ultimate check and balance on the government.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
The clause being spoken about.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

He also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

So, he said "bear arms" and then said "militia duty" to mean the same thing.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr Jackson used "bear arms" as "render military service"

There's plenty of evidence to show that "bear arms" is essentially the right to be in the militia. For example the National Guard was created alongside the "unorganized militia". This was because if the National Guard were the only militia, then individuals would be able to demand service in that militia. So they made a militia which everyone was in, but was totally pointless and didn't get in the way of the National Guard, just to get around the bear arms clause of the 2A.

A right in NOT something you can't be prevented from doing because all rights have limitations.

 

[Blues Man]

It's the nature of the crime and of the criminals.

So it just is.

There is no good or evil about it.

You want to deny human nature

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

‘Congress may require background checks of the sort currently codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-926, because the Second Amendment permits laws prohibiting “possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. Congress may limit the number of firearms individuals may purchase in any given period, because the Second Amendment permits “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 626-27. Congress may ban private possession of machine guns, as it did in a law signed by President Reagan and currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), because the Second Amendment permits prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

The Second Amendment and Federal Law

By Mike Dorf **Updated: Here's the video link or just watch below: This afternoon I'll be debating Alan Gura about the future of gun...

www.dorfonlaw.org

The Second Amendment is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ – government has the authority to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law, where such measures neither ‘violate’ nor ‘infringe upon’ the Second Amendment.

The plain language of the 2nd Amendment is a ban on federal authority. When it comes to the FedGov, the 2nd is unlimited and absolute. ZERO federal authority.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"It ceases to be a right when it requires someone else to take action to give it to you."

Er... no. All rights require someone to take action so that you can have it. One look at countries with no rights, like China, show this.

Rights are.... get this.... LIMITATIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

The Magna Carta, where it all started in 1215. It was a power grab by the rich and powerful in England against the monarch King John.
Then came the English Bill of Rights which was another power grab. It limited the power of the new monarchs that the rich and powerful were putting on the throne.

Then came the US bill of rights. A part of the process of taking power from the English monarch and giving it to Americans. These Americans were worried about power. Hence why there is a separation of powers in the US Constitution and then the Bill of Rights.

The right to free speech is literally a limit on what the government can do to people. A person can stand on a street corner and shout whatever they like. Unless of course it's libel, treason etc etc.
A person can demand the government sets up a sound system for them. Doesn't mean the government is going to provide it, but that falls right in to freedom of speech.

When it comes to guns, the right to KEEP ARMS is the right to own guns. The right to BEAR ARMS is the right to be in the militia.

It makes sense. Firstly because this is what the Founding Fathers said, and secondly because this is how you protect the militia, which is the ultimate check and balance on the government.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
The clause being spoken about.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

He also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

So, he said "bear arms" and then said "militia duty" to mean the same thing.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr Jackson used "bear arms" as "render military service"

There's plenty of evidence to show that "bear arms" is essentially the right to be in the militia. For example the National Guard was created alongside the "unorganized militia". This was because if the National Guard were the only militia, then individuals would be able to demand service in that militia. So they made a militia which everyone was in, but was totally pointless and didn't get in the way of the National Guard, just to get around the bear arms clause of the 2A.

A right in NOT something you can't be prevented from doing because all rights have limitations.

All that bullshit diatribe to IGNORE the word "KEEP"

Next

 

[Woodznutz]

So it just is.

There is no good or evil about it.

You want to deny human nature

Of course not. Human nature is a mix of good and evil.

 

[Blues Man]

Of course not. Human nature is a mix of good and evil.

No human nature just is what it is.

All human behavior exists on a continuum therefore all human behavior occurs simply as a result of humans existing.

even without the labels of "good" or "evil" all those behaviors would still occur at pretty much the exact same frequency.

Therefore it is neither good nor bad it just simply is.

 

[Woodznutz]

No human nature just is what it is.

All human behavior exists on a continuum therefore all human behavior occurs simply as a result of humans existing.

even without the labels of "good" or "evil" all those behaviors would still occur at pretty much the exact same frequency.

Therefore it is neither good nor bad it just simply is.

Why are those terms in our lexicon?
Why do we reward what we deem good and punish what we deem evil?
Good and evil seem to be actual social constructs.

 

[Blues Man]

Why are those terms in our lexicon?
Why do we reward what we deem good and punish what we deem evil?
Good and evil seem to be actual social constructs.

Why is any word in our lexicon?

We invented them

And yes they are social constructs but good and evil do not exist in nature.

We are part of nature

The universe is neither good nor bad

We are part of the universe

We create evil when we name the good

It is our penchant for duality that makes this so.

We like to fall back on duality because it makes it easier for us to make sense of the universe but there is no truth in it.

 

[Woodznutz]

Why is any word in our lexicon?

We invented them



We are part of nature

That's an interesting way to look at it.