The Right To Bear Arms

[buttercup]

 

[sakinago]

DUE PROCESS.

Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.

And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.

The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.

Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.

Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.

 

[frigidweirdo]

DUE PROCESS.

Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.

And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.

The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.

Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.

Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.

Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.

It's that simple.

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

 

[Markle]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

The People are the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

No one is unconnected with the militia.

What? I have no association with any militia. Why should I?

 

[sakinago]

DUE PROCESS.

Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.

And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.

The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.

Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.

Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.

Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.

It's that simple.

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.

 

[buttercup]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns." And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality." All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.

 

[sakinago]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

So you do want to get rid of all guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

DUE PROCESS.

Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.

And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.

The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.

Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.

Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.

Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.

It's that simple.

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.

You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.

If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?

Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns." And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality." All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.

Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.

Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.

 

[sakinago]

Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.

And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.

The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.

Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.

Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.

Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.

It's that simple.

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.

You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.

If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?

Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.

I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

So you do want to get rid of all guns.

Not necessarily.

I prefer society that is safer.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.

Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.

Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.

It's that simple.

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.

You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.

If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?

Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.

I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.

Loose again?

Fucking hell

 

[sakinago]

Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.

And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.

The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.

Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.

Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.

Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.

It's that simple.

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.

You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.

If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?

Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.

I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.

 

[sakinago]

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.

Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.

It's that simple.

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.

You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.

If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?

Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.

I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.

Loose again?

Fucking hell

Loose like let loose your liberty

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.

It's that simple.

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.

You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.

If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?

Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.

I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.

Loose again?

Fucking hell

Loose like let loose your liberty

Uh huh?

Look, we're looking at the very essence of words here and you can't differentiate between lose and loose.

 

[buttercup]

Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.

Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.

When you make it more and more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, all you're doing is shifting the balance of power to criminals and the government.

It is unrealistic to say we can take guns away from society, because the only way to do that would be to turn us into a totalitarian, unfree police state... is that what you want? And even then, criminals will still find ways to get guns, so ultimately, all you're doing is disarming good people, creating sitting ducks, and turning us into a police state where criminals and the government are empowered.

 

[sakinago]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

So you do want to get rid of all guns.

Not necessarily.

I prefer society that is safer.

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

 

[sakinago]

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.

You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.

If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?

Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.

I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.

Loose again?

Fucking hell

Loose like let loose your liberty

Uh huh?

Look, we're looking at the very essence of words here and you can't differentiate between lose and loose.

It’s a typo, a misspelling. What I mean is I clear. Are you saying I don’t know the definition of either lose, or loose.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.

Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.

When you make it more and more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, all you're doing is shifting the balance of power to criminals and the government.

It is unrealistic to say we can take guns away from society, because the only way to do that would be to turn us into a totalitarian, unfree police state... is that what you want? And even then, criminals will still find ways to get guns, so ultimately, all you're doing is disarming good people, creating sitting ducks, and turning us into a police state where criminals and the government are empowered.

Really?

The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.

In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.

As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.