Florida School Shooting

[bofa]

he's making fun of you because the right called him a community organizer in a pejorative way for years

your description of him as a qualified candidate is accurate

Unfortunately the qualifications for candidacy are pretty lenient. Natural born, 15 year resident, and 35+ isn't exactly a high bar. It's a shame we seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel every 4 years.

 

[bofa]

Christ, and they yell at us for buying into propaganda. That is quite a list of "accomplishments"

Would you care to refute any of those? I'm not saying you have to like any of his actions, but to say he's not doing anything is blatantly short-sighted.

 

[ndcent]

Fla. shooting survivor's mother: We have received death threats | TheHill

Stay classy, conservatives.

 

[bofa]

Fla. shooting survivor's mother: We have received death threats | TheHill

Stay classy, conservatives.

Lumping all conservatives with the nuts is how you lost the last election. Keep it up and you'll get another 4 of Trump.

I try to avoid associating all of the left with your extreme nuts (such as the perpetrators of many of the recent mass shootings).

 

[muellernautique]

For all you libs wanting to license something, how about we license procreation? And that's not to say you can prevent 2 people from bumping uglies (a true inalienable right), but without completing coursework and getting said license, perhaps they are financially penalized until they can prove their ability to care for their offspring (and they certainly should not rewarded with government assistance and tax credits/deductions).

i've said this a couple of times and everyone always says the "you can't prevent people from doing it anyways" but like you said, the government should stop rewarding people for poor decisions. if i gave my dog a treat every time she threw up on the carpet or stole my food off the table, she'd keep doing it.

 

[e60ral]

but if we licensed procreation how could bofa post here?

 

[bofa]

but if we licensed procreation how could bofa post here?

Hey now... without me, your mom would have never accidentally had you.

 

[ndcent]

Lumping all conservatives with the nuts is how you lost the last election. Keep it up and you'll get another 4 of Trump.

I try to avoid associating all of the left with your extreme nuts (such as the perpetrators of many of the recent mass shootings).

“Generalizations are wrong. Mass shooters are all liberals.”

Bless your heart.

 

[MN4runnerman]

Last 2 posts remind me of the great small hands debate of 2016

Edit except for ndcent posting right when I did. The 2 posts above his

 

[bofa]

Last 2 posts remind me of the great small hands debate of 2016

Edit except for ndcent posting right when I did. The 2 posts above his

Yeah I felt dirty about it afterwards. All in good fun.

 

[bofa]

“Generalizations are wrong. Mass shooters are all liberals.”

Bless your heart.

You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are ya? I was providing an example as to why generalizations are wrong and why I don't associate that way. (At least I dont think you've shot anyone today.) It's a two-way street and disingenuous.

 

[e60ral]

as soon as we start giving ratings to video games and movies this will go away, it's impressive how trump was able to get right to the core problem

 

[LandCruiser]

The way I see it, you are selectively prioritizing the second amendment above the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Times have changed since the implementation of the second amendment, and it is just that, an amendment, added due to the climate at the time.

Is your second amendment right more important than others right to life? Additionally, is it not plausible that an amendment can or should be modified or altered, or an additional amendment added based on our current climate? Because if we just stagnate and refuse to accept any change or modification, we will no longer be part of a progressive society, and at some point inaction becomes compliancy.

You are entitled to free speech on the TV, internet, and radio. Times have changed, but the constitution won't, unless you want to make an amendment.

My right to bear arms is absolute unless you want to start changing the constitution.

 

[LandCruiser]

the supreme court, even conservative members like scalia, have repeatedly confirmed that gun control does not violate the 2nd amendment. now maybe you are actually a constitutional expert who has been nominated for the next supreme court vacancy, but if not the court's position on the 2nd amendment is what matters

we have a gun problem, sportsmen and gun supporters can either lead the charge using their experience and knowledge to draft sensible solutions or be left behind as the pendulum swings and overbearing controls are put in place. the number of us gun owners who are okay with, and and asking for, more gun control is large and growing.

Scalia is long dead.

Hopefully Trump can stack the SCOTUS and federal courts with hard line conservative judges who don't believe like Jug Ears Obama did that the Constitution is open for interpretation.

 

[e60ral]

You are entitled to free speech on the TV, internet, and radio. Times have changed, but the constitution won't, unless you want to make an amendment.

My right to bear arms is absolute unless you want to start changing the constitution.

um, maybe you missed this post, but gun control and banning dangerous weapons is constitutional:
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/off-topic/251038-florida-school-shooting-25.html#post2917287

i mean this is Anthony Scalia (who is assuredly not a "lib"):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

-Section III of the D.C. v. Heller decision

DC v Heller is probably the most comprehensive decision when it comes to reviewing contemporaneous meanings and understandings of the 2nd amendment and court decisions and beliefs since then, and even it clearly states that gun control is okay and banning dangerous weapons is constitutional

 

[e60ral]

Scalia is long dead.

Hopefully Trump can stack the SCOTUS and federal courts with hard line conservative judges who don't believe like Jug Ears Obama did that the Constitution is open for interpretation.

are you just totally unfamiliar with scalia? scalia was an originalist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

 

[LandCruiser]

um, maybe you missed this post, but gun control and banning dangerous weapons is constitutional:
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/off-topic/251038-florida-school-shooting-25.html#post2917287

i mean this is Anthony Scalia (who is assuredly not a "lib"):

-Section III of the D.C. v. Heller decision

DC v Heller is probably the most comprehensive decision when it comes to reviewing contemporaneous meanings and understandings of the 2nd amendment and court decisions and beliefs since then, and even it clearly states that gun control is okay and banning dangerous weapons is constitutional

What's a "dangerous weapon?"

Something that scares liberals because it's black and makes a lot of noise?

Maybe they saw it shoot 1000 rounds without reloading on TV.

Until ignorant people stop weighing in their gun control fantasies that aren't based on any logic, but emotions, I'm going to fight and lobby against every last bit of feel good legislation.

 

[e60ral]

What's a "dangerous weapon?"

Something that scares liberals because it's black and makes a lot of noise?

Maybe they saw it shoot 1000 rounds without reloading on TV.

Until ignorant people stop weighing in their gun control fantasies that aren't based on any logic, but emotions, I'm going to fight and lobby against every last bit of feel good legislation.

does this mean you've at least realized that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited?

as soon as you realize that guns can be limited, then we can discuss where to set that limit

 

[LandCruiser]

are you just totally unfamiliar with scalia? scalia was an originalist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origi...ized that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited?

He wasn't far right enough for me.

And, no, the 2nd doesn't need any further infringement, certainly not an AWB or a total semiautomatic ban those coached and groomed professional victims are screeching for on that ignorant CNN town hall last night.

 

[e60ral]

He wasn't far right enough for me.

And, no, the 2nd doesn't need any further infringement, certainly not an AWB or a total semiautomatic ban those coached and groomed professional victims are screeching for on that ignorant CNN town hall last night.

i think you mean crisis actors, right?

and since scalia is an originalist, don't you mean the constitution isn't far right enough for you? fingers still crossed for full-on fascism?