Courts have already ruled on the issue of gun control, Larry. We did have an assault weapons ban back in the 1990's. And at least NY, IL, MA and CA have stricter gun laws than most states. We have "infringements" on the 2nd Amendment and we're hoping to more someday, when more Millennials, women and people of color become elected to Congress. Congress is too old and too white for anything to change at the moment.
GT40s.com Paddock GUNS thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
Age and race discriminate much? :shocked:
And don't forget gender too.
America is a multi-cultural and diverse country, but our Congress is made up of largely old white men. That's a simply fact.
Religion (Christian)
America 71%
Congress 90%
Gender (Women)
America 51%
Congress 19%
Minorities
America 38%
Congress 19%
And this info is for the 115th Congress, which has made strides over the past decade(s).
Have you seen the pictures of who's behind Trump when he does a signing ceremony? Old white men.
Facts are facts. As Colonel Nathan R. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) said in "A Few Good Men," YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! :laugh:
BINGO!!!!!!!!!! You've FINALLY admitted it! Gun laws ARE "infringements"! And the O-N-L-Y way they've been allowed to stand is by some anti-gun agenda-driven judge/court DEEEEEEEEMING them constitutional thru I-N-T-E-R-P-R-E-T-A-T-I-O-N.
You really screwed up the phrasing/intent of your 'rebuttal'...so, I'll presume to know the point you TRIED to make and answer it: VOTING killed people when the death penalty for this-or-that crime was placed on the ballot and it passed...when ABORTION was made legal...when "assisted suicide" was passed. 'Clear enough?
Nice try...but, as usual you chose to IGNORE the point I originally made and wander off into 'Equivalencyland' in order to pettifog the issue. Both voting AND owning & carrying arms are RIGHTS...and, whereas the voter I.D. card simply verifies you are who and what you SAY you are...the whole intent of the Mass. gun law is to, in one way or another, actually infringe on / prohibit someone from exercising his/her right to keep and bear WITHOUT due process.
THAT's the diff 'twixt' the two....
Did you miss the quotes around the word "infringement"? Do you know what quotes mean and how they're used? If not, take a refresher course in their use.
You're other response is nonsense/nonsensical. I can't even craft a response to complete nonsense of comparing voter ID laws to guns.
Larry, I said this before, but I'll repeat it.
Your method of responding to other people's posts, cutting up quotes into a bunch of smaller quotes into one post and then using a plethora of quotation marks, bolding, apostrophes, capital letters, hyphens etc., almost like you're being paid to use to them, makes reading your responses extremely difficult and laborious, and I'm being kind.
Your method of responding to other people's posts, cutting up quotes into a bunch of smaller quotes into one post and then using a plethora of quotation marks, bolding, apostrophes, capital letters, hyphens etc., almost like you're being paid to use to them, makes reading your responses extremely difficult and laborious, and I'm being kind.
So I noticed.
AGAIN you've refused to deal with THE POINT...choosing instead to nitpick about/delve into/focus on minutia regarding the punctuation I used while making it.
Done here.
What is your point? Do you have one? Who can figure it out? Can you make your point simply w/o all your typical BS and punctuation/minutia?
And please don't recite back the 2A again and again. Gun control is here, accept it, and move on. And while you're at it, accept more gun control in the future, because society is changing. :laugh:
Rod,
i see you are making friends again...
Carry on
i see you are making friends again...
Carry on
Well tomorrow is Wednesday, what will the SC do?
Robert Mueller's Tough Week in Court | National Review
Robert Mueller's Tough Week in Court | National Review
Hahahahahahaha my bad, wrong thread!
Since you're into nitpicking grammar/punctuation, et al, one would think you'd know "recite back" is a wee bit redundant. It's somewhat like saying 'widow woman'...or, 'ATM machine'.
Anyway, I'll continue to "recite back" / use the 2nd Amend as proof this-or-that gun control law is unconstitutional any time I deem it appropriate. What you and your ilk need to "accept" is the fact that "no law infringing" means just exactly that...and if, by the Grace of God, Trump gets the opportunity to appoint one or two more conservative SCOTUS justices, SCOTUS will then have an 'absolute majority' (if you will) that recognizes the aforesaid for it truth it is and will be ruling that way for a looooong time to come.
The old adage that the rights granted by the 2nd Amend ensure we'll be able keep the rest is not fiction.
Larry, Larry, Larry...we've been over this before, so please pay attention this time. To quote one of our Nobel prize winners for Literature (believe it or not), "The times, they are a changing"! Our society is and always will be in a state of flux and things that were necessary or even advisable centuries ago no longer make sense (should we still be transporting our mail by stagecoach just because it's the way it was done when the Founding Fathers existed....certainly not!!!)
The 2A is an Amendment...an addition to the constitution. Sure it's important, but being an Amendment it's clear that while the Constitution was being formulated the FFs didn't really even think gun ownership was important enough to address. It's not set in stone and Amendments can be amended, themselves. Rod's right, our society is changing the attitude it has about weapons and although I don't think we should overlegislate the purchase of such items I do believe that changes to our present practices are necessary.
Cheers to you, Larry!!! :thumbsup:
Doug
Last edited:
Redundancy. One word. Duty noted. I'll keep that one in mind.
Regarding conservative SCOTUS justices and the 2A, I'm very happy that the strict constitutionalists on SCOTUS over the decades have NOT ruled on African Americans being 3/5ths of person, ruled against gay marriage and thankfully we still segregate blacks and whites in schools. Phew! :laugh:
Society changes and then laws change. The 2A may not change in our lifetimes, but I'll bet someday society will eventually move on from guns. Technology changes too quickly and society changes slowly, but it does change, and at some point they will intersect on gun laws and the 2A.
If you don't think society will change in the future about the use of weapons, just today, Boston Dynamics has their robots running and doing all sorts of stuff.
And I already posted about countries combining robots and weapons, like the old Robocop movies. Your guns won't be able to stop robots with guns, eventually.
Humanoid robot runs through the park by itself - Video - Technology
Getting some air, Atlas? - YouTube
And I already posted about countries combining robots and weapons, like the old Robocop movies. Your guns won't be able to stop robots with guns, eventually.
Humanoid robot runs through the park by itself - Video - Technology
Getting some air, Atlas? - YouTube
Redundancy. One word. Duty noted. I'll keep that one in mind.
One of my favorite sayings is "Brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department".
...sort of a play on words....:shocked:
Doug
Last edited:
One of my favorite sayings is "Who's got it better than us? Noooobody." And there's a song about it too.
That's very funny Doug, made me laugh. :thumbsup:
It seems folks here love to play on one word, say like, the word "back."
Yes, chopping up someone's else post, to make it nearly unreadable, is far more preferable than a redundant word.
THANK YOU for conceding the exact point I've been making with regard to the 2nd Amend. No, we obviously should NOT be transporting our mail by stagecoach - or Pony Express either for that matter. The USPS should always have access to - and be able to buy/own/use - THEE most current, up-to-date equipment available...just as The Founders obviously intended "we, the people" should always have access to - and be able to buy/own/use - the most current and up-to-date arms available as opposed to being limited to the flintlocks and muzzle loaders that were available "when the Founding Fathers existed".
...so, obviously then, the OTHER "rights" contained within the 1st 10 "amendments" are simply "addition(s) to the constitution" as well, and as such are ALSO just 'afterthoughts' that are therefore equally unworthy and of no real importance. 'Got it...
The F.F.s must not have figured a militia was "important enough to address" either...which explains why they chose to write: "A well regulated militia, being >necessary< to the >security< of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (sarc)
Wow. The thought processes of the liberal mind are sure bewildering...
Last edited:
Direct from a Firesign Theater album, "All Hail Marx and Lennon" issue IIRC
In light of the Democrat-sponsored gun control following the San Bernardino attack, it is crucial to remember the important role armed citizens play in keeping themselves and others safe.
Perhaps no example illustrates this better than that of the Uber driver who pulled his handgun and stopped an attempted mass shooting in Chicago on April 17.
The driver had a concealed carry permit, so he was carrying his gun legally. And the fact that he had the gun with him prevented injury to innocents at the very least, and perhaps saved numerous lives on top of that.
Breitbart News reported that the driver was sitting in his car on Milwaukee Avenue, watching people shuffle back and forth in front of the car just before midnight. As he watched, a gunman raised a weapon and began to fire, so the driver then sprang into action.
According to the Chicago Tribune, 22-year-old Everardo Custodio allegedly “began firing into the crowd,” and the Uber driver fired back. He fired a total of “six shots at Custodio,” striking him three times and wounding him in “the shin, thigh, and lower back.” The attempted mass shooting was over and the the only injuries were to Custodio.
Numerous similar examples exist—examples largely overlooked by a Democratic Party fixated on making it harder for citizens to get the guns they need for self-defense.
For instance, just one month before the armed Uber driver saved the day in Chicago, a concealed permit holder saved adults and children when a gunman opened fire in a Philadelphia barber shop. Bretibart News reported that the concealed permit holder was walking past the barber shop on March 22 when he heard the sounds of gunfire inside. Instead of running away, the concealed permit holder ran inside and shot the would-be mass shooter in the chest, fatally wounding him.
Perhaps no example illustrates this better than that of the Uber driver who pulled his handgun and stopped an attempted mass shooting in Chicago on April 17.
The driver had a concealed carry permit, so he was carrying his gun legally. And the fact that he had the gun with him prevented injury to innocents at the very least, and perhaps saved numerous lives on top of that.
Breitbart News reported that the driver was sitting in his car on Milwaukee Avenue, watching people shuffle back and forth in front of the car just before midnight. As he watched, a gunman raised a weapon and began to fire, so the driver then sprang into action.
According to the Chicago Tribune, 22-year-old Everardo Custodio allegedly “began firing into the crowd,” and the Uber driver fired back. He fired a total of “six shots at Custodio,” striking him three times and wounding him in “the shin, thigh, and lower back.” The attempted mass shooting was over and the the only injuries were to Custodio.
Numerous similar examples exist—examples largely overlooked by a Democratic Party fixated on making it harder for citizens to get the guns they need for self-defense.
For instance, just one month before the armed Uber driver saved the day in Chicago, a concealed permit holder saved adults and children when a gunman opened fire in a Philadelphia barber shop. Bretibart News reported that the concealed permit holder was walking past the barber shop on March 22 when he heard the sounds of gunfire inside. Instead of running away, the concealed permit holder ran inside and shot the would-be mass shooter in the chest, fatally wounding him.
- Status
