|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 10:11:02 GMT -5
Which pre Heller "interpretation" are you referring to? Didn't Heller confirm the individual right to bear arms? You don't believe in that? The interpretation that had been in effect for over 200 years. That the Constitution protects the collective right. Beyond that states and local governments should be able to legislate gun laws that reflect the will of the people. What would a collective right as opposed to an individual right look like? Who would be included in the "collective"? Police? National Guard? Law abiding individuals?
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 29, 2024 10:19:47 GMT -5
The interpretation that had been in effect for over 200 years. That the Constitution protects the collective right. Beyond that states and local governments should be able to legislate gun laws that reflect the will of the people. What would a collective right as opposed to an individual right look like? Who would be included in the "collective"? Police? National Guard? Law abiding individuals? You were alive before 2008, right? It looked like that. "Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise." www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment?utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED
|
|
summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,616
|
Post by summer23 on Apr 29, 2024 10:41:28 GMT -5
No one has said that she did not have the "right" to shoot her animals. But also, no one will tell me that I cannot condemn her for it. This is not about gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 10:51:12 GMT -5
What would a collective right as opposed to an individual right look like? Who would be included in the "collective"? Police? National Guard? Law abiding individuals? You were alive before 2008, right? It looked like that. "Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise." www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment?utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED Well the author of the amendment implied it was an individual right so I will have to go with that. If its not an individual right then it wouldn't be a deterrent to tyranny.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 29, 2024 10:51:26 GMT -5
Which pre Heller "interpretation" are you referring to? Didn't Heller confirm the individual right to bear arms? You don't believe in that? The interpretation that had been in effect for over 200 years. That the Constitution protects the collective right. Beyond that states and local governments should be able to legislate gun laws that reflect the will of the people. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I bet that's not your view when the subject is abortion.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 29, 2024 10:56:17 GMT -5
Well the author of the amendment implied it was an individual right so I will have to go with that. If its not an individual right then it wouldn't be a deterrent to tyranny. Did we experience tyranny before 2008?
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 11:19:53 GMT -5
Well the author of the amendment implied it was an individual right so I will have to go with that. If its not an individual right then it wouldn't be a deterrent to tyranny. Did we experience tyranny before 2008? No because it was a defacto individual right before SCOTUS confirmed it in Heller. There were no bans on individual gun ownership before 2008 that I am aware of.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyz on Apr 29, 2024 11:41:35 GMT -5
I don't think what she did is uncommon when you live on a farm or ranch. Glad I wasn't brought up in that life, I'm not sure I could handle it. It's never easy to hear these stories but it happens all the time. Maybe she thought it best to share the story since there were witnesses to these shootings. This story appears to be making her out to be a monster and I don't think that is the case. It's a good thing yall don't live on a farm or ranch. You're talking sanity and reality to the unhinged. All these people saw was "(R)" and "possible VP pick" and their knee jerk fit of high dudgeon kicked in. Pavlov would recognize these folks immediately and say "I told you so". So far this year 804 children have been gunned down in schools, grades K-12. but the unbalanced folks here don't post about it because in most cases the political affiliation of the perp is not reported. Don't refer to posters as unhinged vosa. This is a good example of why your posts get deleted. No personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 29, 2024 11:47:54 GMT -5
Did we experience tyranny before 2008? No because it was a defacto individual right before SCOTUS confirmed it in Heller. There were no bans on individual gun ownership before 2008 that I am aware of. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself w the Heller case.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 12:08:13 GMT -5
No because it was a defacto individual right before SCOTUS confirmed it in Heller. There were no bans on individual gun ownership before 2008 that I am aware of. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself w the Heller case. What should I know beyond it confirmed the individual right to own arms?
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 12:10:20 GMT -5
The Trumpist was widely viewed as a potential VP pick. As for the rest of your post. A lot of people here, myself included, believe we need sane gun control laws and we discuss it all the time. Widely viewed as a potential VP pick by whom. Donald Trump for one. Most media outlets for another
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 29, 2024 12:18:44 GMT -5
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself w the Heller case. What should I know beyond it confirmed the individual right to own arms? Well, for starters From the Heller decision written by Scalia It's amazing what happens when you actually bother to read court documents. You learn something
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 12:42:02 GMT -5
What should I know beyond it confirmed the individual right to own arms? Well, for starters From the Heller decision written by Scalia It's amazing what happens when you actually bother to read court documents. You learn something That is not what I was asking. There were always some limits on what weapons you could own.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 29, 2024 13:16:45 GMT -5
Noem seems to be a terrible human being, and there was a time telling a story like this would have scuttled her political opportunities. Will doing so now have that effect? I suppose we will learn something unpleasant about Trump if he chooses her despite this. Something else unpleasant, that is.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 29, 2024 15:09:04 GMT -5
You're talking sanity and reality to the unhinged. All these people saw was "(R)" and "possible VP pick" and their knee jerk fit of high dudgeon kicked in. Pavlov would recognize these folks immediately and say "I told you so". So far this year 804 children have been gunned down in schools, grades K-12. but the unbalanced folks here don't post about it because in most cases the political affiliation of the perp is not reported. Don't refer to posters as unhinged vosa. This is a good example of why your posts get deleted. No personal attacks. What person did I attack?
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Apr 29, 2024 15:41:28 GMT -5
I don't think what she did is uncommon when you live on a farm or ranch. Glad I wasn't brought up in that life, I'm not sure I could handle it. It's never easy to hear these stories but it happens all the time. Maybe she thought it best to share the story since there were witnesses to these shootings. This story appears to be making her out to be a monster and I don't think that is the case. It's a good thing yall don't live on a farm or ranch. You're talking sanity and reality to the unhinged. All these people saw was "(R)" and "possible VP pick" and their knee jerk fit of high dudgeon kicked in. Pavlov would recognize these folks immediately and say "I told you so". So far this year 804 children have been gunned down in schools, grades K-12. but the unbalanced folks here don't post about it because in most cases the political affiliation of the perp is not reported. So, you are ok with the idea that an untrained dog should be killed rather than trained. Why? Because training was too inconvenient. Forget R vs D. Some things are just wrong regardless of the laundry worn.
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Apr 29, 2024 15:44:59 GMT -5
So far this year 804 children have been gunned down in schools, grades K-12. but the unbalanced folks here don't post about it because in most cases the political affiliation of the perp is not reported. So, what have you done to support protecting children in schools? Are you for increased background checks for gun ownership? Are you for a waiting period? Are you for increased funding for mental health? Or do you think, "just give the teachers an AR-15 and hope they get the drop on 'em"?
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 29, 2024 15:52:43 GMT -5
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself w the Heller case. What should I know beyond it confirmed the individual right to own arms? It defined the 2nd amendment right as an individual right for the first time. And as stated before, no "tyranny" prior to that decision.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 16:13:58 GMT -5
What should I know beyond it confirmed the individual right to own arms? It defined the 2nd amendment right as an individual right for the first time. And as stated before, no "tyranny" prior to that decision. Yes because the people were armed individual right defined or not. Why do you think the government is trying to ban AR-15s now? It isn't because of its use in gun deaths, more people die from being stabbed with a knife then get killed with an AR-15. Its because an AR-15 is the most effective gun against a multiple targets like you would have in a resistance to tyranny situation. When the government wants to disarm its citizens of the most effective small arms they don't have anything good in mind.
|
|
summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,616
|
Post by summer23 on Apr 29, 2024 20:40:14 GMT -5
You're talking sanity and reality to the unhinged. All these people saw was "(R)" and "possible VP pick" and their knee jerk fit of high dudgeon kicked in. Pavlov would recognize these folks immediately and say "I told you so". So far this year 804 children have been gunned down in schools, grades K-12. but the unbalanced folks here don't post about it because in most cases the political affiliation of the perp is not reported. So, you are ok with the idea that an untrained dog should be killed rather than trained. Why? Because training was too inconvenient. Forget R vs D. Some things are just wrong regardless of the laundry worn. I spent $60 that I did not have at the time to have a five-year-old hamster euthanized when it developed a tumor on its chest. My neighbors had other remedies that I rejected. lol So, I admit that I am a little sensitive to this subject.
|
|
|
Post by ivanbalt on Apr 30, 2024 5:23:10 GMT -5
It defined the 2nd amendment right as an individual right for the first time. And as stated before, no "tyranny" prior to that decision. Yes because the people were armed individual right defined or not. Why do you think the government is trying to ban AR-15s now? It isn't because of its use in gun deaths, more people die from being stabbed with a knife then get killed with an AR-15. Its because an AR-15 is the most effective gun against a multiple targets like you would have in a resistance to tyranny situation. When the government wants to disarm its citizens of the most effective small arms they don't have anything good in mind.
So the original assault weapons ban that was originally proposed by the Reagan adminstration and went into affect in 1994 was to prevent resistance against tyranny? I must have missed that 10 year dictatorship that only could have been prevented by brave Americans and their AR-15 rifles.
What is with you gun nuts and your fantasies about "fighting tyranny" aka shooting police and soldiers? How many jets, helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles, drones, and/or missiles do you imagine yourself shooting with your rifle when it's pretend time?
|
|
|
Post by cowboyz on Apr 30, 2024 7:08:36 GMT -5
So, you are ok with the idea that an untrained dog should be killed rather than trained. Why? Because training was too inconvenient. Forget R vs D. Some things are just wrong regardless of the laundry worn. I spent $60 that I did not have at the time to have a five-year-old hamster euthanized when it developed a tumor on its chest. My neighbors had other remedies that I rejected. lol So, I admit that I am a little sensitive to this subject. I had a hamster when I was a kid that had a huge tumor on his hind quarter. My Dad knew people at Johns Hopkins, they took the hamster for research purposes.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 30, 2024 7:46:31 GMT -5
Yes because the people were armed individual right defined or not. Why do you think the government is trying to ban AR-15s now? It isn't because of its use in gun deaths, more people die from being stabbed with a knife then get killed with an AR-15. Its because an AR-15 is the most effective gun against a multiple targets like you would have in a resistance to tyranny situation. When the government wants to disarm its citizens of the most effective small arms they don't have anything good in mind.
So the original assault weapons ban that was originally proposed by the Reagan adminstration and went into affect in 1994 was to prevent resistance against tyranny? I must have missed that 10 year dictatorship that only could have been prevented by brave Americans and their AR-15 rifles.
What is with you gun nuts and your fantasies about "fighting tyranny" aka shooting police and soldiers? How many jets, helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles, drones, and/or missiles do you imagine yourself shooting with your rifle when it's pretend time?
No one is fantasizing about fighting tyranny. We hope it never gets to that. As far as your comments about fighting against jets and tanks check your history. The Viet Cong didn't have a problem fighting against superior forces. History is rife with independence movements fighting against established militaries and winning. You also assume that American forces would all be on board with the tyrants.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 30, 2024 11:20:32 GMT -5
A friend's cat developed a growth on her forehead, and her vet said there was nothing to be done, take the cat home, bring it back when it's time... Fast forward a year or so and she tries another vet, who says, "I'll debulk it and we'll see". He got it all and it never returned. Few things are certain in medicine.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 30, 2024 14:01:37 GMT -5
So the original assault weapons ban that was originally proposed by the Reagan adminstration and went into affect in 1994 was to prevent resistance against tyranny? I must have missed that 10 year dictatorship that only could have been prevented by brave Americans and their AR-15 rifles.
What is with you gun nuts and your fantasies about "fighting tyranny" aka shooting police and soldiers? How many jets, helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles, drones, and/or missiles do you imagine yourself shooting with your rifle when it's pretend time?
No one is fantasizing about fighting tyranny. We hope it never gets to that. As far as your comments about fighting against jets and tanks check your history. The Viet Cong didn't have a problem fighting against superior forces. History is rife with independence movements fighting against established militaries and winning. You also assume that American forces would all be on board with the tyrants. So in this fantasy you're the Vietcong? And the US military in their homeland is the US military in Vietnam? Well sure. Thats the same.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 30, 2024 14:04:45 GMT -5
No one is fantasizing about fighting tyranny. We hope it never gets to that. As far as your comments about fighting against jets and tanks check your history. The Viet Cong didn't have a problem fighting against superior forces. History is rife with independence movements fighting against established militaries and winning. You also assume that American forces would all be on board with the tyrants. So in this fantasy you're the Vietcong? And the US military in their homeland is the US military in Vietnam? Well sure. Thats the same. Fantasy??? Apparently you don't understand the concept of an example. Wow! SMH
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 30, 2024 16:38:33 GMT -5
Yes because the people were armed individual right defined or not. Why do you think the government is trying to ban AR-15s now? It isn't because of its use in gun deaths, more people die from being stabbed with a knife then get killed with an AR-15. Its because an AR-15 is the most effective gun against a multiple targets like you would have in a resistance to tyranny situation. When the government wants to disarm its citizens of the most effective small arms they don't have anything good in mind. So the original assault weapons ban that was originally proposed by the Reagan adminstration and went into affect in 1994 was to prevent resistance against tyranny? I must have missed that 10 year dictatorship that only could have been prevented by brave Americans and their AR-15 rifles.
What is with you gun nuts and your fantasies about "fighting tyranny" aka shooting police and soldiers? How many jets, helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles, drones, and/or missiles do you imagine yourself shooting with your rifle when it's pretend time? What’s the 1st thing dictators do when they come to power. China, Cuba, Venezuela. All the same.Do you think that's a coincidence? And have you thought about the fact that maybe it’s just not the government that citizens need to protect themselves from. As James Madison observed in Federalist no. 46, tyrannical governments invariably Here are some thoughts on gun ownership.
Please tell me what ones your disagree with and why.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 30, 2024 16:47:01 GMT -5
She seems very odd.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Apr 30, 2024 17:16:54 GMT -5
No worries. I don't think she was even on Trump's short list.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 30, 2024 17:39:57 GMT -5
Seize the media and then purge academia
|
|