EVERYONE does that, when people talk politics.
My thoughts
- Thread starter SamSpade
- Start date
Yeah that is the problem, letting criminals out that should remain locked up or have been executed for the crimes committed
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
Probably about your next nail color.
And then we have the vast majority of them that are simply in a rotating door...commit the felony with a firearm, get jailed, get released, wash, rinse, repeat many, many times over.
So the whole point of your argument, while valid, is effectively moot most of the time.
How so? What is moot, the right to be armed?
The opposite. That anyone really ever has - effectively - that right taken away. Certainly no rights being taken away from the Feral Class, no matter what they do.
gemma_rae
Well-Known Member
Or you're a sore loser.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
For understanding how our Bill of Rights work? Don’t think I’m the sore loser, Pookie.Or you're a sore loser.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
To paraphrase our late, great SCOTUS Justice Scalia, “The Constitution is not a living document. It’s dead. If you want to change it, change it.”
Until then, the right to bear arms is immutable.
Until then, the right to bear arms is immutable.
gemma_rae
Well-Known Member
Of course you don't poor baby.
You were merely separated from your brain, Lil Poopie.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I repeat my Statement------------- I don't know how that pertains to real law, but it's what i believe. If a person cannot own a gun without using it in a criminal manner they should not be allowed to have one . 2nd. Amendment or not. In the same manner that person who is a criminal should not be allowed to vote.
That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
You are too good of a person to understand them Sam.
The frozen water bottle has many uses. Throw it through a window, at a cops head etc, but also if someone has to hide out they have a multi use item, they can stay hydrated, cool. Also if caught with one their lawyer will simply claim they were staying hydrated and cool on their nightly walk. If their leaders fingerprints are discovered on one that was thrown through a window they can claim they were simply giving water to the less fortunate and they never intended it to be thrown through a window.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
Good thing the law isn’t based on the nutty thoughts rolling around in that empty noggin of yours.
So comments made me think -
Certainly the framers MUST have lived in a time where there existed SOMEONE who shouldn't be toting a gun?
I mean, don't we all get all indignant over the idea that they at least only INTENDED for white male property owners to have the right to vote, at least, initially?
Just spitballin' here.
Because we already possess reasonable constraints - like an age. We limit voting to those 18 and older. You can't give a child a gun.
I guess what concerns me is, we NOW live in a world where guns exist - and we have very vulnerable places where people are helpless. And it pains me to think the only way to protect children in schools is for there to be those WITH guns there, but the cops in Nashville took down that shooter inside of 14 minutes. NOT fast enough to save 6 people, but faster than they could even unload all guns.
I don't want to take away anyone's guns - as one commenter said here - Ken? - it's the only right that says "shall not be infringed" although EVERYWHERE that clause is just ignored. But common sense MUST mean, they knew that some constraints were sensible.
And we clearly do NOT have an answer for school shootings. Every time they happen, the left has the same answer. It's time they get one from the right. One that makes MORE sense.
Certainly the framers MUST have lived in a time where there existed SOMEONE who shouldn't be toting a gun?
I mean, don't we all get all indignant over the idea that they at least only INTENDED for white male property owners to have the right to vote, at least, initially?
Just spitballin' here.
Because we already possess reasonable constraints - like an age. We limit voting to those 18 and older. You can't give a child a gun.
I guess what concerns me is, we NOW live in a world where guns exist - and we have very vulnerable places where people are helpless. And it pains me to think the only way to protect children in schools is for there to be those WITH guns there, but the cops in Nashville took down that shooter inside of 14 minutes. NOT fast enough to save 6 people, but faster than they could even unload all guns.
I don't want to take away anyone's guns - as one commenter said here - Ken? - it's the only right that says "shall not be infringed" although EVERYWHERE that clause is just ignored. But common sense MUST mean, they knew that some constraints were sensible.
And we clearly do NOT have an answer for school shootings. Every time they happen, the left has the same answer. It's time they get one from the right. One that makes MORE sense.
Of course they lived in such a time. And it was much more problematic then the self-made crises we deal with nowadays. The arms back then were used for protection and sustenance. on a greater level than today.
Now? Its always been that way since there were guns, before that other killing tools existed. I think the key is when you say "people are helpless". It is what has become when you place your safety in another's hands. As to an answer to the school shootings - harden the target. You want schools safe you've got to be able to do it, unfortunately that means armed people ready to respond.
now now… Stop all the crazy talk, looking for legislation to make sense.
Part of my collection, about 2/3 of the swords I own. Also have other Medieval implements.
Like the Pear of Anguish?