Second admendment

Wow!.....the other thread got closed and it was not nearly at the level of this one?! I'm still pondering the violent opposition to having additional Police or other armed Authority figures in Schools given the realities of recent events. Some folks have stated only Police should have guns in America, yet turn around and say they don't trust them to protect schools. Given the failure of the 4 cops in Florida......maybe I'm off base after all?!:tape2:
School to prison pipeline

Sent from my P00A using Tapatalk
 
But really very typical of folks like you and NDcent, RCFJ, etc...

If I was directing so much anger and vitriol at KIDS, who are peacefully and conscientiously standing up for the change they think is right, regardless of whether I agreed with their message or not and I had called them
attention whores
little shits
They're not victims.
crisis actors

among other things, I would hope someone would call me on it too.
 
I stand corrected. I can admit it. Of course we already know you can't as proven with the weaponization of the FBI and IRS debacles...Oh wait am I supposed to call names and throw insults now like that not so upstanding member RCFJ??? You lefties have so much anger. You lost. Get over it.
Blame Obama, he was so horrible we actually elected Donald Trump! :pound: Your President!

I understand your hostility. If my party was a giant out of control dumpster fire I could see myself with your same level of seething anger. I mean your President is rage tweeting misspelled rants at SNL actors while there are no sanctions, no blow back on Putin's nuclear weapons announcement yesterday, no action on proven meddling in the electoral process by the Russians, etc. It’s pathetic and embarrassing.

Anyways, let’s get this back on topic.

Nice to see the NRA will all their Russian money met with Trump and Pence and got it all sorted out yesterday, we’re going to use that old tired violent video games narrative from the 80s/90s to harp on for a while. I bet Stephen Paddock was super into COD Modern Warfare and that’s why he massacred all those people. If only there were some kind of rating system for these games.
 
I understand your hostility. If my party was a giant out of control dumpster fire I could see myself with your same level of seething anger. I mean your President is rage tweeting misspelled rants at SNL actors while there are no sanctions, no blow back on Putin's nuclear weapons announcement yesterday, no action on proven meddling in the electoral process by the Russians, etc. It’s pathetic and embarrassing.

Anyways, let’s get this back on topic.

Nice to see the NRA will all their Russian money met with Trump and Pence and got it all sorted out yesterday, we’re going to use that old tired violent video games narrative from the 80s/90s to harp on for a while. I bet Stephen Paddock was super into COD Modern Warfare and that’s why he massacred all those people. If only there were some kind of rating system for these games.

I'm sorry I guess you misunderstood my post and think it has anger in it??? Nice try. It's obvious which is the party of anger and it's obvious which party those mentioned in my post belong to, you included. Also I don't know what party you think I belong to but you obviously don't know me.

As far as your video game reference goes. In order for reason to be in this discussion you will have to concede that there is a difference in an inanimate object such as a gun sitting on the table versus a video game where you are actually mimicking the behavior of killing someone. You are killing people in virtual reality.....Huge difference.

Also in order for reason to be in this discussion you would have to recognize Hollywoods love affair with gun violence. Cashing in on killing people on screen while most of the actors simulating the killing call for gun control. Hypocrites! Yes you would have to recognize that these entertainment outlets could influence people to commit evil. But will you? Or do you blame an inanimate object that sits there and does nothing until someone uses it to commit evil?

So far we can all see what you believe. Try reason for a change.

One more thing, I see you live in the USA...Mr. Trump is your president also.
 
Last edited:
Delta Airlines' HQ is in Georgia.
Delta announced it would not longer give NRA members discounts.
Georgia legislature just passed a budget that did not renew Delta's $50M annual fuel tax exemption.
 
jesus, talk about republicans working themselves into a hissy fit over nothing:

The number of Delta Air Lines passengers who bought tickets with NRA discount: 13
wtsp.com | The number of Delta Air Lines passengers who bought tickets with NRA discount: 13

On Delta, I enjoyed this take..

Fox News literally had a headline bragging about it titled "FIGHTING BACK"

The complete and utter lack of principles....

Like if you polled "conservatives" aka the party of small government and generically asked "Should a company be punished by the government for not giving discounts to a political group?"

You would get a resounding "NO."

Phrase it like "Should this liberal satanist company be punished by the government for bring mean to conservatives?" and the answer is apparently "Hell yea! Fighting Back!"

It's the same thing with "conservative" businesses owners I know getting boycotted over their NRA support and they are shocked and appalled meanwhile they were calling for the NFL to fire Colin Kaepernick just months ago. They sense no irony or hypocrisy whatsoever.

Then they go and say how the left is afraid of and shutting down "free speech" - well apparently they only mean their speech.
 
Last edited:
Most people don't understand the wording of the second amendment. First thing is a Nation or country was referred to as a "State" back then and having something in the constitution guaranteeing a military or army or navy to be "armed" would be redundant or unnecessary. Back then a lot of arms were stored in powder houses for the canons, guns, etc. So it was necessary for all people who were deemed militia, which at the time were all able bodied males and females between 16-40 years of age, to have access to the stores of arms and be able to carry arms. They didn't want a Red coat to be able to walk into any town and arrest someone for carrying a banned assault weapon at the time.

"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."

Now if you want more context of these times I recommend reading the Federalist papers written by the founding fathers. They specifically mention a possible loss of security to ensure our liberties.

You have to remember our country was built on blood shed. The first shots at Lexington were fired by extreme right militia at the military or government agents when they came to disarm the local populace.

Sure 17 people is a tragedy but we have over 320 million people living in the US now. I know it sounds cold hearted but we have to accept these type of losses to maintain out liberties.
 
Most people don't understand the wording of the second amendment. First thing is a Nation or country was referred to as a "State" back then and having something in the constitution guaranteeing a military or army or navy to be "armed" would be redundant or unnecessary. Back then a lot of arms were stored in powder houses for the canons, guns, etc. So it was necessary for all people who were deemed militia, which at the time were all able bodied males and females between 16-40 years of age, to have access to the stores of arms and be able to carry arms. They didn't want a Red coat to be able to walk into any town and arrest someone for carrying a banned assault weapon at the time.

"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."

Now if you want more context of these times I recommend reading the Federalist papers written by the founding fathers. They specifically mention a possible loss of security to ensure our liberties.

You have to remember our country was built on blood shed. The first shots at Lexington were fired by extreme right militia at the military or government agents when they came to disarm the local populace.

Sure 17 people is a tragedy but we have over 320 million people living in the US now. I know it sounds cold hearted but we have to accept these type of losses to maintain out liberties.
No we dont, gun control doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. Read DC v Heller

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
No we dont, gun control doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. Read DC v Heller

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

"We have to accept these losses to mantain our liberties."

Yes we do.

DC v Heller:

"the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

"Right to bear arms is not unlimited"- we drew the line at full auto a while back. A semi auto ban should clearly violate it.
 
Delta Airlines' HQ is in Georgia.
Delta announced it would not longer give NRA members discounts.
Georgia legislature just passed a budget that did not renew Delta's $50M annual fuel tax exemption.

I just saw the GA Lt. Governor on tv. Apparently Delta was asking for the tax exemption for the 1st time; they didn't already have it.
 
No we dont, gun control doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. Read DC v Heller

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I am very familiar with the brief Scalia wrote. He even mentions Illinois Nazis and you know how we feel about them?

Anyways Scalia specifically mentions the prior SC case, Miller where they argued a sawed of shotgun was protected by the 2nd but since the military did not use a sawed of shotgun he was not protected by the 2nd. An Ar15 would be protected since this is what the military currently uses and is very common. Scalias exact quote:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
 
"We have to accept these losses to mantain our liberties."

Yes we do.

DC v Heller:

"the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

"Right to bear arms is not unlimited"- we drew the line at full auto a while back. A semi auto ban should clearly violate it.

Honestly I feel the GCA and NFA is unconstitutional. We should be able to walk into any liquor store and buy a full auto MP5 and silencer and walk out without being asked for ID the entire time.

I know the bleeding hearts will yell at me for this quote "But what about the Childrenz!" my reply is, do you think the common criminal or crazy can afford a full auto MP5 from HK and a quality suppressor. I believe cost of these weapons is prohibition enough.
 
"We have to accept these losses to mantain our liberties."

Yes we do.

DC v Heller:

"the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

"Right to bear arms is not unlimited"- we drew the line at full auto a while back. A semi auto ban should clearly violate it.
DC v Heller states that gun control is constitutional, read section 3

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Your logical fallacy is- false dichotomy

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
So having armed Police in a school will put a damper on the freedom to misbehave....to the point it offsets the deterrent value against another massacre? What if the Police are restrained from enforcing minor school disturbance and are just ''Stationed'' in a work room to do normal police reports and such, no need to interact with the Kids normal routine? Don't you think the mere presence of bodies and cruisers on site would be of value?
 
I bet they feel pretty stupid right about now. This is why you don't let your purple-haired Social Media team make decisions for the entire billion+ dollar company.

When virtue signaling gets real, you lost 40 mil to placate SJWs on Twitter over 13 discounts. :pound:

I have so many gun parts coming by FedEx, I actually paid more for the express delivery to screw with liberal whiners :lmao:
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,305
Messages
3,554,042
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top