The firearm thread

[TheDemonLord]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand

Well hold up, There's a whole lineage of English Legal history and precedent that stands behind the Constitution. It is a codified Social Contract.

When you imprison someone, for example, they no longer have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right of Liberty has been taken away. It is on this basis that certain rights (The right to vote, Right to own Firearms) are revoked once someone has breached the Social Contract that exists between 'We, The People' and The United States Government.

If you, the individual, have broken your side of the bargain first - then it is inline with both the Constitution and nearly 1,000 years of tradition that some rights are revoked.

This is no different from when the Barons of the Norman era had to forfeit their land when convicted of a Crime.

[sugilite:Me]

Just like how I felt when Jacinda did the same.

Why? Unlike Abbott and Ilk, she actually did something. Furthermore, the Islamic community very much appreciated her sentiments. Youtube scumbag Abbotts school visit, trust me, it was not well received.

This comes back to my point about Roe V Wade - whether you agree or not with it (In this case the NZ Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports and other wholesale abuse of Ancient Rights and Liberties have put me firmly on the 2A train) - The Law is what it is - and it is the Justice's job to uphold the Law. Well, no, that's exactly it - if they Law says they are allowed to, then they are allowed to - if you don't think they should - then change the Law - but no one is saying that cause they know it would be suicide.

Boom! You walked right into that one - The pollies that should be making the changes refuse to do so.

you piss on my rights, I'm going to get more passionate about defending them.

Have a good hard look at the photo below. What about their rights to have a life? Heartless gun toten fucks don't give a shit about their rights. I sure don't see any concern from you about them.

[TheDemonLord]

Why? Unlike Abbott and Ilk, she actually did something. Furthermore, the Islamic community very much appreciated her sentiments. Youtube scumbag Abbotts school visit, trust me, it was not well received.

She was practically falling over herself that now she had a reason to ban those Evil Guns. Why? Because it was standing on corpses to push an agenda. And nothing she had done prior or since has convinced me that she really does care about anything other than following her Agenda.

Boom! You walked right into that one - The pollies that should be making the changes refuse to do so.

Hold up - why has none of the Politicians, Left or Right - raised the question of Amending the 2nd Amendment. It's within their power to do so...

Because it would be political suicide in the US - which means one thing - there is not the backing of the populace to do so.

And whilst it IS the Law, the Supreme Court is within their rights to take up a Textualist interpretation, referencing things such as the Federalist Papers and to expand Gun rights, in keeping with 2A.

Have a good hard look at the photo below. What about their rights to have a life? Heartless gun toten fucks don't give a shit about their rights. I sure don't see any concern from you about them.

The Government did not infringe on their right to life.

Take the core of your argument - I could probably pull up endless pictures of all the Children who died due to Car Accidents - and make the argument that to save lives we must ban cars.

Or Bicycles
Or Swimming Pools

All of which kill more kids per year than 'Mass Shootings'

What about the rights of nearly 4,000,000 Americans a year to not be a victim of a Crime due to Armed Citizen intervention?

It's not heartless - banning the Tool does not stop the Crime. I've provided multiple examples from the UK showing that Mass Shootings despite numerous gun Law changes have still happened. I've provided examples from other countries with the same access to the class of Firearm that do not appear to have this issue.

The evidence that is coming out on this one, like Chch - is that the Authorities made multiple major fuck-ups that lead to this.

[onearmedbandit]

S

Take the core of your argument - I could probably pull up endless pictures of all the Children who died due to Car Accidents - and make the argument that to save lives we must ban cars.

Or Bicycles
Or Swimming Pools

All of which kill more kids per year than 'Mass Shootings'

Car accidents
Bicycle accidents
Drowning accidents
Mass shooting accidents?

[TheDemonLord]

Car accidents
Bicycle accidents
Drowning accidents
Mass shooting accidents?

Accident or intentional - they are still dead - and isn't that what we are concerned about?

And in this case, there's a number of details that have been released, that if true (I'm still reserving judgement) strongly point to the issue being with Authorities response (or more correctly - Lack thereof), and I'm not just talking about the Police actions.

[pete376403]

Accident or intentional - they are still dead - and isn't that what we are concerned about?

And in this case, there's a number of details that have been released, that if true (I'm still reserving judgement) strongly point to the issue being with Authorities response (or more correctly - Lack thereof), and I'm not just talking about the Police actions.

Wonder if you would feel this way if it was your partner and child/ren who got slaughtered. Good dinner time discussion for you with your family tonight "you'll be pleased to know I value the right to have and use guns over your right to life" - let us know that goes.

[pritch]

I'm sure that the 4 star admiral and previous grand poobah of NATO would warmly welcome your advice.

I'm sure that the Admiral is aware of what's in the constitution. Particularly the 2nd Amendment.

"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."

The RWNJs always point at just the last part of that sentence while ignoring the first part. An eighteen year old, who on his eighteenth birthday, buys two AR15 type weapons and a load of ammunition on time payment, can not by any definition be considered "A well regulated militia".

Sheer idiocy.


As mentioned elsewhere here the local Uvalde cops, on the advice of their lawyers, are pleading the Fifth Amendment and will not cooperate with the State investigation.

Nothing shonky there then.

[Kickaha]

Well hold up, There's a whole lineage of English Legal history and precedent that stands behind the Constitution. It is a codified Social Contract.

When you imprison someone, for example, they no longer have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right of Liberty has been taken away. It is on this basis that certain rights (The right to vote, Right to own Firearms) are revoked once someone has breached the Social Contract that exists between 'We, The People' and The United States Government.

If you, the individual, have broken your side of the bargain first - then it is inline with both the Constitution and nearly 1,000 years of tradition that some rights are revoked.

This is no different from when the Barons of the Norman era had to forfeit their land when convicted of a Crime.

The very words "Shall not be infringed" negate all that bunch of waffle above, it doesn't say Shall not be infringed unless you commit a crime or breach a non existent social contract or anything else we don't like

Hold up - why has none of the Politicians, Left or Right - raised the question of Amending the 2nd Amendment. It's within their power to do so...

Because it would be political suicide in the US - which means one thing - there is not the backing of the populace to do so.

It doesn't mean that at all it's because it means the politicians going up against their lords and masters in the NRA who have bought and paid for a great many of them like your mate Donald to the tune tens of millions of dollars

[sugilite:Me]

Accident or intentional - they are still dead - and isn't that what we are concerned about?

Well demonstratively not you with your attempts of "look over here" trivialization's - making out accidents are the same as outright murder.
And as for your notion that Jacindas sole reason for her comforting that traumatized community was to get rid of guns. Seriously, grow the fuck up. A massive majority of the NZ Political parties supported the move, it was far from being just Jacinda. The parties actually worked together. Somthing the US could learn from the NZ Pollies. When shit gets real, real shit needs to get done.

"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."

The RWNJs always point at just the last part of that sentence while ignoring the first part. An eighteen year old, who on his eighteenth birthday, buys two AR15 type weapons and a load of ammunition on time payment, can not by any definition be considered "A well regulated militia".

Sheer idiocy.

Indeed, even the smallest of proposed restrictions become an instant wah, waah, waaaaaaah. As evidenced in this very thread.

[TheDemonLord]

Wonder if you would feel this way if it was your partner and child/ren who got slaughtered. Good dinner time discussion for you with your family tonight "you'll be pleased to know I value the right to have and use guns over your right to life" - let us know that goes.

Let me ask this:

Anyone who has lost a loved one in a Car Crash, or as the result of a malicious act - say a drunk Driver:

Do you still Drive and do you seek to ban Cars?

If so, then your reasons for doing so are the same reasons that I do so.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm sure that the Admiral is aware of what's in the constitution. Particularly the 2nd Amendment.

"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."

The RWNJs always point at just the last part of that sentence while ignoring the first part. An eighteen year old, who on his eighteenth birthday, buys two AR15 type weapons and a load of ammunition on time payment, can not by any definition be considered "A well regulated militia".

Sheer idiocy.

You'll need to take that line of argument up with the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court Justices - they've regularly re-affirmed that the Militia refers to an individual.

I'm sorry that this is a massive hole in the argument you are trying to make.

As mentioned elsewhere here the local Uvalde cops, on the advice of their lawyers, are pleading the Fifth Amendment and will not cooperate with the State investigation.

Nothing shonky there then.

As Shonky one might say, as someone who can't pay their phone bill being able to spend thousands on high-end ARs on credit.

[TheDemonLord]

Well demonstratively not you with your attempts of "look over here" trivialization's - making out accidents are the same as outright murder.
And as for your notion that Jacindas sole reason for her comforting that traumatized community was to get rid of guns. Seriously, grow the fuck up. A massive majority of the NZ Political parties supported the move, it was far from being just Jacinda. The parties actually worked together. Somthing the US could learn from the NZ Pollies. When shit gets real, real shit needs to get done.

That wasn't her Sole reason, but she couldn't wait to do it. Remember how she changed the submissions process so that there wasn't the proper time to have Public debate on it.

The other parties voted for it because they are a bunch of feckless cowards. NZ First were drummed out of Parliament for it and National forgot they were in Opposition.

Indeed, even the smallest of proposed restrictions become an instant wah, waah, waaaaaaah. As evidenced in this very thread.

And for good reason. Firstly because there's a law that prohibits such restrictions, but secondly because it is the Check and Balance against Government overreach. Given how the likes of Aus, NZ, UK, Canada etc. had tyrannical lockdown rules - the US rightly goes 'And this is why we are armed'

[TheDemonLord]

The very words "Shall not be infringed" negate all that bunch of waffle above, it doesn't say Shall not be infringed unless you commit a crime or breach a non existent social contract or anything else we don't like

The Constitution IS a Social Contract... It exists between the People and the Government.

But furthermore - you are trying to ignore the context in which the document was written, what was meant. In this respect, there was a long legal tradition from England that the Founding Fathers were immersed in, I believe that Magna Carta was cited by one of the first Supreme Court Justices for that reason.

Even though Magna Carta is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

As an example - today we might thing that Execution is a Cruel Punishment, and try to point to the prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the Law. The problem is that at the time of writing, Execution was not considered Cruel or Unusual, therefore it is not prohibited by that law, as the founding Fathers intended it.

So when a Felon commits a crime, they forfeit some of their rights in line with English Jurisprudence of the time, and so the intent of that this isn't extended to convicted Felons is correct.

It doesn't mean that at all it's because it means the politicians going up against their lords and masters in the NRA who have bought and paid for a great many of them like your mate Donald to the tune tens of millions of dollars

So, you want me to believe that the entire Democrat party, which is seeking these changes in opposition to the likes of the NRA, won't say they want to repeal 2A because the NRA are funding them?

Yeah, because that makes sense... not.

[pritch]

You'll need to take that line of argument up with the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court Justices - they've regularly re-affirmed that the Militia refers to an individual.

Complete bollocks of course. If enough Yanks wise up the government and the SCOTUS will change. Sadly the Republican policy of keeping the citizenry stupid is working better than they could have imagined.

[pete376403]

Let me ask this:

Anyone who has lost a loved one in a Car Crash, or as the result of a malicious act - say a drunk Driver:

Do you still Drive and do you seek to ban Cars?

If so, then your reasons for doing so are the same reasons that I do so.

Even the drunkest driver is unlikely to go out on the road asking "how many people can I kill tonight". Being drunk/drugged does not in any way excuse what they did, but its unlikely there was any malice behind their actions.

How did the dinner conversation go?