What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The Second Amendment is vague if you don't understand how the English language works.

 

Do you not understand how the English language works?

 

I understand you’re a !@#$ who likes to talk loose on the internet. I understand that. 

 

And it is vague you dumb son of a B word bc we don’t what they meant by “well regulated” or even “militia.” But shitcunts without education have a hard time understanding legal jargon. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by The_Dude

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

 

I understand you’re a !@#$ who likes to talk loose on the internet. I understand that. 

 

But the English language, not so much. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I understand you’re a !@#$ who likes to talk loose on the internet. I understand that. 

 

And it is vague you dumb son of a B word bc we don’t what they meant by “well regulated” or even “militia.” But shitcunts without education have a hard time understanding legal jargon. 

No, you don't understand much at all.  You frequently make poor arguments out of ignorance.  This is another clear example.

 

The Constitution was written at roughly a 5th grade reading level, in the plain English of the day.  This is by design.

 

If you diagram the !@#$ing sentence, and understand the meanings of the words in use at the time it was written, and the surrounding source material (Federalist, anti-Federalist, etc) there is zero ambiguity.

 

Your argument is intellectually lazy and ignorant.

[LeviF]

40 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

 

Look guy, if anybody try’s to take my guns I’ll kill them. I’m about the right to bear arms. But the 2nd amendment is vague. All I’m sayin. 

 

I don't think it's vague at all.  "Shall not be infringed" is clear enough.  Militia, if you didn't know, is actually defined in 10 USC § 246.  That was written in the early 1900's, so if you want to go back to the Federalist Papers and the original intent of the word "militia," it was essentially all able-bodied men of reasonable age.  The Federalist papers use the term "regulated" in terms of the militia to mean something wholly different than what gun-grabbers want it to mean.  29 and 46 are particularly relevant.

Edited February 14, 2018 by LeviF91

[DC Tom]

8 hours ago, The_Dude said:

“Prior to the American Revolution there was neither budget nor manpower nor government desire to maintain a full-time army. Therefore, the armed citizen-soldier carried the responsibility. Service in militia, including providing one's own ammunition and weapons, was mandatory for all men. Yet, as early as the 1790s, the mandatory universal militia duty evolved gradually to voluntary militia units and a reliance on a regular army. Throughout the 19th century the institution of the organized civilian militia began to decline.^[1]:10 The unorganized civilian militia, however, still remains even in current U.S. law, consisting of essentially everyone from age 17 to 45, while also including former military officers up to age 64, as codified in 10 U.S.C. § 246”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

 

i can’t remember where I read that other than Wikipedia just now, but I know I’ve read it in a couple sources. 

 

American men were required to own a firearm and shot.  

 

COLONIAL America, you dumbass.  Learn to read.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

COLONIAL America, you dumbass.  Learn to read.  

Good point.

 

I never should have pressed him on sentence structure until he has mastered the basics.

Edited February 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

Florida high school shooting: Live updates - CNN.com

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html

50 mins ago

 

 

 

‘SCUMBAG Alert’: Sen. Chris Murphy wastes NO time turning Fla. school shooting into gun control push

 

 

.

[Warren Zevon]

Isn't CNN fake news?

[row_33]

There really aren't too many news options to source these days....

 

CNN does a good job with live footage.

 

 

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

COLONIAL America, you dumbass.  Learn to read.  

 

1776. Learn to math. And read the whole damn thing. And was colonial America not America? I mean I consider it so but for legalities we cannot start till succession. And then some argue that we can’t even argue until the ratification of the constitution. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by The_Dude

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, you don't understand much at all.  You frequently make poor arguments out of ignorance.  This is another clear example.

 

The Constitution was written at roughly a 5th grade reading level, in the plain English of the day.  This is by design.

 

If you diagram the !@#$ing sentence, and understand the meanings of the words in use at the time it was written, and the surrounding source material (Federalist, anti-Federalist, etc) there is zero ambiguity.

 

Your argument is intellectually lazy and ignorant.

 

Ok....you’re an idiot. I will not converse with you after this. 

 

You’re an idiot because you do not see the issue with “militia,” and “well regulated.”

 

Whats a militia? Who’s in charge of the militia? From whom does the militia get its logistics? Is their governmental oversight of the militia? Was the militia supposed to be free from governmental regulation? If so why did they include “well regulated?” What do they mean by “well regulated?” How did they intend it to be regulated? Cause them’s are question that I can’t answer from:

 

” 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.”

 

And the constitution is simple? Mother !@#$er, what the !@#$ do you think the goddamn SCOTUS is for? We gotta have 9 of the best and most experienced legal minds to tell us what a document written at a fifth grade level says? You’re a jackass. I would destroy you in any environment. You don’t deserve a freaking place at the table with me. 

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The Constitution was written at roughly a 5th grade reading level, in the plain English of the day.  This is by design.

This is exactly correct....

I get what Dude is saying, because we have been told this for years, that is why we need the courts to determine it's hidden meanings...

 

But to Dude, TYTT is correct, in that it was written in simple Laymens terms on purpose, so that anyone could read it and understand it. Remember, the drafters still has to go back to their states and convince the population to ratify this Constitution, so they made sure that all of it was cut and dry, and easy to understand.

No hidden meanings, no reason for the courts to have to rule on the understanding of it... 

[Nanker]

12 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

1776. Learn to math. 

[/dev/null]

14 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

1776. Learn to math. 

publick ejacayshun werkt

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

 

2 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

publick ejacayshun werkt

 

Something I can clarify for you two?

4 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

No hidden meanings, no reason for the courts to have to rule on the understanding of it... 

 

In your mind, what is it that the Supreme Court does? Hackie sack?

[IDBillzFan]

58 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Florida high school shooting: Live updates - CNN.com

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html

50 mins ago

 

 

 

‘SCUMBAG Alert’: Sen. Chris Murphy wastes NO time turning Fla. school shooting into gun control push

 

 

.

 

We're going to find out this was a kid who had a girl reject his box of Valentines' Day candy, and finally the country will come together and ban Valentines Day so no more children can be hurt by this ridiculous freaking holiday.

[Cinga]

3 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

 

Something I can clarify for you two?

 

In your mind, what is it that the Supreme Court does? Hackie sack?

Have you ever heard of jury nullification? It was never the original intent to have the courts rule on the Constitutionality of a law, THAT is the domain left to the People. The courts were to interpret the law, and to preside over trials. 

My argument is simple, and if you read any of the Federalist Papers you will see what I mean... We are always told there are 3 branches of government too right? But what are the very first words of the Constitution? If we have 3 branches of government, who presides over them? Well, the ones who established those branches to begin with.... You see, We the People are the 4th branch, and presiding branch of government. While we could exist without the others, they cannot exist without us... 

[TakeYouToTasker]

55 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Hold my beer...

The terms "militia" and "well regulated" conform to the common understanding of those words in the time they were written. 

 

There is ample source material:  Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers, Black's, and even the US code which outlines the meanings of those words; and the simple diagraming of the sentence in question allows anyone with a 5th grade reading level to understand that "well regulated" modifies "militia", not the right to bear arms whose only modification is "shall not be infringed".

 

As to the purpose of the Court, it requires the most revisionist historical perspective imaginable to ignore Marbury v Madison, where the Court awarded itself a power not expressly outlined in the Constitution.  The Document does not require the Court's understanding.  Stare Decisis requires the Courts understanding, as the Court no longer rules on the document itself, but rather on the body of law they themselves created with the power they usurped.

 

And you're right, I don't belong at the children's table with you.  I'm more than happy at the grownup's table where we don't **** our pants or throw our food.  Also, it's probably for the best that you've decided against responding anymore, given how badly you're getting your ignorant ass kicked every time you open your mouth.

Edited February 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[The_Dude]

Just now, Cinga said:

 

My argument is simple, and if you read any of the Federalist Papers you will see what I mean... We are always told there are 3 branches of government too right? But what are the very first words of the Constitution? If we have 3 branches of government, who presides over them? Well, the ones who established those branches to begin with.... You see, We the People are the 4th branch, and presiding branch of government. While we could exist without the others, they cannot exist without us... 

 

Ive read the federalist papers. The one thing about them though is that while they’re a great primary source they also cannot be used to establish a baseline for the founders because there were many views. 

 

You cannot have law without ambiguity when it’s common law. I prefer the 12 Tables to our Constitution. 

 

And clearly the SCOTUS is essential in trying to answer complex questions about our common law. 

 

If they (the founders) wanted a straight forward document they’d have come up with something like the 12 tables. But they didn’t. Why? There wasn’t much they agreed on. Like whether black people were in fact people. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

For the abject morons in the room, here is a link to Webster's Dictionary from 1828

 

 

Quote

Militia

MILI'TIA, noun [Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, Latin molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

 

 

You'll note that the definition itself includes mention of the laws surrounding militias.  These are the regulations being spoken of.  The sentence structure of the Second Amendment provides the government the authority to "regulate the militia".  This means that the government has the authority to organize the militia to attend military exercises, given the common understanding of what the term militia means.  This is consistent with the rest of the document written at the time, in which the Document painstaking lays out all the actions the Federal government is permitted to take.

 

This is measured language, as it assigns a very specific power to the government.

Edited February 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

Shooter was ex-student, may have been flagged as threat... 

 

 

President Prays For Victims: No Child Should Feel Unsafe...

 

 

,

[The_Dude]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Shooter was ex-student, may have been flagged as threat... 

 

 

President Prays For Victims: No Child Should Feel Unsafe...

 

 

,

 

Thank god he’s praying. It should be all ok very soon. 

[B-Man]

Update: The Miami Herald has a name but apparently based on only one police source. Exercise caution until it’s formally confirmed.

The 19-year-old ex-student, who has been detained by Broward police, has not been publicly identified as a suspect. But a law-enforcement source identified him as Nicolas Cruz.

“We were told last year that he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him,” said math teacher Jim Gard, who said Cruz had been in his class last year. “There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus.”

Note his age. Being 18 or older, he’s eligible for the death penalty.

 

 

,

[Tiberius]

26 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Update: The Miami Herald has a name but apparently based on only one police source. Exercise caution until it’s formally confirmed.

The 19-year-old ex-student, who has been detained by Broward police, has not been publicly identified as a suspect. But a law-enforcement source identified him as Nicolas Cruz.

“We were told last year that he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him,” said math teacher Jim Gard, who said Cruz had been in his class last year. “There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus.”

Note his age. Being 18 or older, he’s eligible for the death penalty.

 

 

,

Cruz? You know the President is done praying  for dead and he Kelly and Miller are praying he is a Dreamer. They will be jerking off together if he was 

[boyst]

@SoTier hey chicken ****. This is where you can sound off with your bull ****

[Teddy KGB]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Cruz? You know the President is done praying  for dead and he Kelly and Miller are praying he is a Dreamer. They will be jerking off together if he was 

 

Do you ever shut up ? 

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Do you ever shut up ? 

 

Ignore him................he never fully reads what he is (supposedly) responding to either,

 

Update: The Miami Herald has a name but apparently based on only one police source. Exercise caution until it’s formally confirmed.

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Do you ever shut up ? 

You know I'm right 

[boyst]

@SoTiergrow a pair.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

 

1776. Learn to math.

 

Was COLONIAL America.  It was 13 years removed from the United States.

 

Quote

And read the whole damn thing.

 

I did.  You're going off a single sentence in a half-assed Wikipedia article without citation or backing, that you misinterpreted anyway.

 

I mean how !@#$ing stupid do you have to be to think "Prior to the American Revolution there was neither budget nor manpower nor government desire to maintain a full-time army" makes any sense whatsoever?  Prior to the American Revolution, there was no government desire to maintain a full-time army BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GOVERNMENT TO MAINTAIN A FULL-TIME ARMY.  How the hell can you read that and think it makes any sense?  Can you read?  At all?  Do you understand English?  Are you even sentient?  Are you an aardvark?  It would explain things - aardvark's gonna aardvark, after all, and aardvarking doesn't include understanding the limitations of half-assed wikipedia articles.  So tell me, please, that you're an aardvark...I'll buy that. 

 

Quote

And was colonial America not America? I mean I consider it so but for legalities we cannot start till succession. And then some argue that we can’t even argue until the ratification of the constitution. 

 

Learn some history, aardvark.  Colonial days, up to and past the French and Indian Wars, since there was no full-time army, settlements were defended by "militia" comprised of the able-bodied armed men of the settlement, not by an sort of standing military force.  With the exception of the Massachusetts Bay Colonial Militia, no settlement had a legal requirement that able-bodied male settlers be armed - and the Massachusetts Bay requirement was repealed in the early 1640s.  And there were no state or federal requirements, because militias were organized at the town level, and there were no state or federal ANYTHING.  This persisted to and through the Revolutionary War, which itself was fought largely by local militia that was - importantly - not centrally administered and not well-regulated, and generally not self-armed except in as much as some colonists still possessed British Brown Bess provided to the Colonial Militias by the British in the French and Indian War...and why would the British even need to do that, if the Colonial Militias were required to maintain their own arms?

 

Which is why the "well-regulated militia" qualification is in the Second Amendment - because the local, unregulated militias were causing such problems as Shays' Rebellion, where private armies fought to overthrow the Massachusetts government - and notably, were armed by the theft of weapons from the federal Springfield Armory BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CARRY WEAPONS OF THEIR OWN.  "A well-regulated militia..." doesn't fall out of some ivory-tower musings in The Federalist Papers - it was a direct reference to the immediate problem that prompted the replacement of the Articles of Confederation to begin with, and had precisely ****-all to do with some fictitious gun ownership mandate.

[FreddieJizzle22]

Isn't today "Thoughts and Prayers" Day?  Why are we arguing!!!!!

[Coach Tuesday]

You know what?  Law-abiding gun owners ARE the problem.  They damn well are.

[Cinga]

2 hours ago, The_Dude said:

And clearly the SCOTUS is essential in trying to answer complex questions about our common law.

This part at least is correct.... THE LAW! Not the Constitution....

 

This probably won't be popular, but we are supposed to have 3 equal branches of government right? 

Legislative = makes law

Executive = Executes the law

Judicial = presides over, and interprets the law

Nothing in the Constitution gives any branch oversight of itself, the Constitution. THAT was left to the ones who ratifies it, We the People

Marbury vs Madison however tipped the scales when the court took the Constitution to themselves, and claimed to be the arbiter of it. Since then, we have a branch with authority over the other 2 because they can simply over rule them both. This was never the intent of the framers, and certainly isn't an enumerated power under the Constitution.

[boyst]

21 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

You know what?  Law-abiding gun owners ARE the problem.  They damn well are.

This could be epic when someone bites on this, but I think there are too many here worn down by Tiberius to do so

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

This could be epic when someone bites on this, but I think there are too many here worn down by Tiberius to do so

I'm not so sure.  It's an opinion that is so blatantly stupid that it doesn't even require a response.

[GG]

33 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

You know what?  Law-abiding gun owners ARE the problem.  They damn well are.

 

How many guns were used here?

[ALF]

Almost all these mass shootings are done by males  not females. Maybe DC Tom has a theory on this.

[TakeYouToTasker]

30 minutes ago, ALF said:

Almost all these mass shootings are done by males  not females. Maybe DC Tom has a theory on this.

Because men and women are different.  We have different brain chemistries, and as a result different pathologies.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I'm not so sure.  It's an opinion that is so blatantly stupid that it doesn't even require a response.

Dude, you've been posting here long enough to know coach Tuesday and what he does...

33 minutes ago, ALF said:

Almost all these mass shootings are done by males  not females. Maybe DC Tom has a theory on this.

You're a racist, dude, not cool

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

You know what?  Law-abiding gun owners ARE the problem.  They damn well are.

 

Of course.  And teetotalers are responsible for DWIs, personal trainers cause obesity, and condom users are the primary vector for STDs.  

 

You !@#$ing idiot.