KoHeartsGPA Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Protect the constitution while kicking the fucking balls off the people promoting radicalization, domestic and abroad. If libs are going to go after gun sellers and manufacturers as "culpable" why the hell can't they apply that to promoting terror? Agreed and I wonder the same thing, seems as blame America first is the agenda. Link to comment
datzenmike Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 If you uphold the people's right to bare arms, do you also uphold their freedom of religion? You can't defend one amendment while shitting on another, because if you do, it becomes a very stinky, and slippery slope. Actually you can and it has successfully been done. Link to comment
paradime Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Actually you can and it has successfully been done. to create a stinky slippery slope? 1 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 I support gun rights. I would support background checks if written right. The Feds currently are able to say someone is tied to terrorism without proof. This is a usable/abusable power. There needs to be some limiting criteria. Maybe a overall population cap on the no gun list? But to insinuate that a nightclub full of drunk hormone driven kids needs a gun on every belt is myopic. There are a shit ton of people who just can't manage anger and alcohol well. Maybe the bouncer should be strapped, but a club should not be expected to allow open or concealed carry. The death toll in night clubs would be higher as a result. They wouldn't be mass murders, but they would add up. This example is far from a simple solution. Really the answer is to reduce further anger toward the US. We keep killing fathers of future soldiers. The militia grows stronger by day. The U.S. Hegemony must take responsibility for its role and start thinking about consequence. The US may be a young nation, but I tire of the teenage invincible mindset. This is a war of doctrine not control. In the words of Allah, no excuse is given to attack except as defense. Allah does not favor the aggressor. One may not attack once offered peace. If the Khalifah is not being agressed, he may not order killings. This can be witnessed throughout history. Are they wrong to call for killings? Yes. But dawning our guns and ammo and waging all out war is like water on an oil fire. There is a way to to win every battle, perhaps it's time to take a different approach. I agree with a lot of that but in today's world with everything we learned since 9/11, we need to apply common sense, one armed bouncer would have saved lives, you can't argue against that... Link to comment
tr8er Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 If he didn't run away... But I'd always support an armed bouncer 1 Link to comment
paradime Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 to create a stinky slippery slope? BTW, I should add there is a huge difference between arguing the interpretation of an amendment, and outright shitting on it. 1 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 to create a stinky slippery slope? BTW, I should add there is a huge difference between arguing the interpretation of an amendment, and outright shitting on it. Yes and no. The word amendment means change or addition. Amendments can and have been changed in the past because they were being shit on. They are not carved in stone so provisions are made for changes. Link to comment
paradime Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Yes and no. The word amendment means change or addition. Amendments can and have been changed in the past because they were being shit on. They are not carved in stone so provisions are made for changes. Yes and no, The Constitution is a living document, but we can't "change" an amendment once it has been ratified. We can repeal it or alter it with another amendment though. Such as the 18th and 23rd amendments. 2 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Yes. Poor choice of wording. Link to comment
VFR800 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-16/british-mp-jo-cox-dies-after-being-shot,-police-say/7518784 UK Member of Parliament shot. UK needs tighter gun control. 2 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Saw that this AM. I think she was pro Brexit and the nut job who shot/stabbed her was alleged to have shouted Britain first. WTF ? 1 Link to comment
VFR800 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Well in the mind of a person who is mentally ill,killing someone will stop whatever it is that they fear will happen if they do not kill someone. Of course it does not. Gays will be still dancing in nightclubs and Brexit might still happen. Link to comment
john510 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Nobody had a gun to stop him....THAT was the reason 49 died. Can you imagine hundreds of liqoured up people trying to save each other with guns ? there would probably be about 49 dead,some of them from friendly fire. I hate the fact that this shooting took place.....and the war it unleashed on our 1st and 2nd amendment rights.....you can't say radical Islam and we need more gun control......uhm....no......we need to get rid of gun free zones.....that's what enables these mentally derranged fucktards to commit mass murders! There really isnt any such thing as a gun free zone,its all a make believe law to make us feel safer Previous incidents where the shooter was taken down with minimal casualties dictates I'm right, people are quick to forget those failed attempts... Suck it, anti gun fools! What previous incidents ? are you talking about civilians or law enforcement ? Link to comment
john510 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 I agree with a lot of that but in today's world with everything we learned since 9/11, we need to apply common sense, one armed bouncer would have saved lives, you can't argue against that... Missed one,there was an armed police officer at the club ! how did that turn out ? from what ive read he actually fired a couple shots. Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 You need to get better informed, and I'm not gonna do it for you, research it. Link to comment
john510 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 You need to get better informed, and I'm not gonna do it for you, research it. Im very well informed,i get all my knowledge from ratsun and the internet where everything posted is fact. 3 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Good, that's how it done. 1 Link to comment
RatVonDude Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Im very well informed,i get all my knowledge from ratsun and the internet where everything posted is fact. no shit, I'm afraid to hit on some of kohearts links. I might get a lifetime subscription to Ranger magazine, or re directed to the national fronts un official site. 3 Link to comment
q-tip Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Don't "interpret" the Constitution, or any law for that matter, take it as fact. I don't care what a law or amendment means in "your opinion" that's not what it is for. It's is to be taken as it is written. 3 Link to comment
paradime Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Don't "interpret" the Constitution, or any law for that matter, take it as fact. I don't care what a law or amendment means in "your opinion" that's not what it is for. It's is to be taken as it is written. And in one foul swoop, Q logic puts thousands of constitutional lawyers out of business. 1 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 And in one foul swoop, Q logic puts thousands of constitutional lawyers out of business. Just like that.....whoooooosh..... Link to comment
q-tip Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 I wish that was the case, but the country was founded by lawyers so I guess the writing has been on the wall since the concept was forged. Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 I read all the knee jerk stories today and I then went about trying to poop. I'm just tired of shrinking rights from overreaction or wrong reaction of idealism. might as well just take the 1st and 2nd away and we can all live in a perfect scociety then...I'm tired of the debate lets get this shit going. Link to comment
RatVonDude Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 just substitute the word RADICAL with RETARDED and I think we can some up peoples idealized opinions 1 Link to comment
MikeRL411 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Yes and no. The word amendment means change or addition. Amendments can and have been changed in the past because they were being shit on. They are not carved in stone so provisions are made for changes. One big difference! The first adopted amendments [the Bill of Rights] to the US Constitution did not create rights, they affirmed the "Rights of Englishmen as of 1792" [to paraphrase numerous affirmative statements in many US State constitutions] specifically so that they could not be abridged by subsequent Legislative branch action. See what the British Parliament has subverted in the lack of a written constitution, just a hodgepodge of old and new writs, laws and royal decrees! By the way, the Bill of Rights originally contained another amendment that forbade the Legislature from increasing their own salaries, it was obviously not adopted, but since it had no expiration date, it could still be voted upon and adopted by those of the current 50 States that did not vote "AYE" the first time around! 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts