Colorado tragedy: THINK IT THROUGH!

[evince]

There is already a treatment for the mental illness that is liberalism and it is free. Just start listening to me

maybe if you could even explain what that SEC release means I might believe you have something to offer.

all you have to offer is right wing propaganda

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The 2nd Amendment, as is the Constitution, a living document. It was designed as a living document. Thus, when the dictates of society require that it be changed, altered, and/or modified to address the dynamic nature of an ever-evolving society, then those changes can and should be made.

That being said .. I already know that they when it comes to guns, no reasonable changes will be made.

It is not nor was it ever meant to be a "living document". That us bullshit spread by those who do not like the Constitution.

That being said, changes can be made to the Constitution. The brilliant Founders created a mechanism for changes to be made. But try we're brilliant enough to make it difficult because they knew that times like these would arise when nefarious individuals such as yourself would seize upon tragedy to further erode the rights if individuals. You fail.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The 2nd Amendment, as is the Constitution, a living document. It was designed as a living document. Thus, when the dictates of society require that it be changed, altered, and/or modified to address the dynamic nature of an ever-evolving society, then those changes can and should be made.

the notion of the constitution as a living document used to infuriate me, at least when the initial 'living' argument was used in a context that the constitution was to be 'interpreted according to the times that we live in'. Now, if we want to look at the prescribed method of altering the constitution using the process outlined in the constitution, one might define that as 'living', though I can't bring myself to do it. The constitution is a legal document, like a contract. It must be taken at face value as a legal document and strictly read via the text or we end up living in a country where the rule of law is so fluid and changeable, that we might as well not have one.

 

[blackascoal]

It is not nor was it ever meant to be a "living document". That us bullshit spread by those who do not like the Constitution.

That being said, changes can be made to the Constitution. The brilliant Founders created a mechanism for changes to be made. But try we're brilliant enough to make it difficult because they knew that times like these would arise when nefarious individuals such as yourself would seize upon tragedy to further erode the rights if individuals. You fail.

You're a moron.

What critical and known issues of the day did the Framers leave out of the Constitution?

Fortunately for this country, they were smarter than you and knew that future generations would resolve evolving issues in their own time .. and the Constituition today stands as a testament to that wisdom.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You're a moron.

What critical and known issues of the day did the Framers leave out of the Constitution?

Fortunately for this country, they were smarter than you and knew that future generations would resolve evolving issues in their own time .. and the Constituition today stands as a testament to that wisdom.

Your first sentence clearly shows you have no understanding of the US Constitution. It wasn't designed to deal with "issues", past present or future. It was designed to create a central government powerful enough to govern yet not too powerful to trample the liberty they just fight and bled for.

Its principal purpose is to LIMIT the power of the federal government which is really at he heart if your problem with it. You want an all powerful central government and the US Constitution prevents it ad stands in your way. That is why you and your ilk concoct bullshit like the "living document".

If you want to change the US Constitution then adhere to the steps outlined by the US Constitution.

And please quit embarrassing yourself with your willful ignorance

 

[evince]

It is not nor was it ever meant to be a "living document". That us bullshit spread by those who do not like the Constitution.

That being said, changes can be made to the Constitution. The brilliant Founders created a mechanism for changes to be made. But try we're brilliant enough to make it difficult because they knew that times like these would arise when nefarious individuals such as yourself would seize upon tragedy to further erode the rights if individuals. You fail.

why did the founders create an amendment process ?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

why did the founders create an amendment process ?

You seem to be hell bet on devolving into a circular argument. I have no such desire. So before we proceed with your education, maybe you should first tell me what you think it means for te Constitution to e a living document. I would refer you to a previous post which stated it better than I could and with which I agree 100%.

If it is constantly moving and changing than it means nothing and we essentially live in anaechy

 

[canceled.2021.1]

the notion of the constitution as a living document used to infuriate me, at least when the initial 'living' argument was used in a context that the constitution was to be 'interpreted according to the times that we live in'. Now, if we want to look at the prescribed method of altering the constitution using the process outlined in the constitution, one might define that as 'living', though I can't bring myself to do it. The constitution is a legal document, like a contract. It must be taken at face value as a legal document and strictly read via the text or we end up living in a country where the rule of law is so fluid and changeable, that we might as well not have one.

This

 

[evince]

You seem to be hell bet on devolving into a circular argument. I have no such desire. So before we proceed with your education, maybe you should first tell me what you think it means for te Constitution to e a living document. I would refer you to a previous post which stated it better than I could and with which I agree 100%.

If it is constantly moving and changing than it means nothing and we essentially live in anaechy

so because you can not defend the fact that the founders intended the people to be able to guide their own government throught the admendment process you are just going to ignore the facts?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

'

Please sober up before you start typing, Yurtle.

summing up your thoughts makes me drunk?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

how woud a conceal and carry person have shot him?

pull the trigger?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

so because you can not defend the fact that the founders intended the people to be able to guide their own government throught the admendment process you are just going to ignore the facts?

You seem intent in wanting to get into a circular argument. I have already stipulated that. Mayb you should learn how to read or just take yes for an answer

 

[blackascoal]

the notion of the constitution as a living document used to infuriate me, at least when the initial 'living' argument was used in a context that the constitution was to be 'interpreted according to the times that we live in'. Now, if we want to look at the prescribed method of altering the constitution using the process outlined in the constitution, one might define that as 'living', though I can't bring myself to do it. The constitution is a legal document, like a contract. It must be taken at face value as a legal document and strictly read via the text or we end up living in a country where the rule of law is so fluid and changeable, that we might as well not have one.

There is little question that the Constitution was written as a living document .. and frankly, anything else would be mindless.

The genius of the Framers was in the wisdom that they would not have knowledge nor solutions for an evolving and dynamic society. I hate to keep bringing this up, but the were the products of the Age of Reason. Reason would dictate the course they took.

We do not live in a country where law is fluid and easily changeable. Surely you know that history and the history of the changes we've made.

The Constitution, like the bible, is all about interpretation. That's why we need Supreme Courts and lawyers with specific and specialized skills to interpret the Constitution .. and preachers and Pope's to interpret the bible.

The very existence of the Amendments demonstrates that it is indeed a living document.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is little question that the Constitution was written as a living document .. and frankly, anything else would be mindless.

The genius of the Framers was in the wisdom that they would not have knowledge nor solutions for an evolving and dynamic society. I hate to keep bringing this up, but the were the products of the Age of Reason. Reason would dictate the course they took.

We do not live in a country where law is fluid and easily changeable. Surely you know that history and the history of the changes we've made.

The Constitution, like the bible, is all about interpretation. That's why we need Supreme Courts and lawyers with specific and specialized skills to interpret the Constitution .. and preachers and Pope's to interpret the bible.

The very existence of the Amendments demonstrates that it is indeed a living document.

the definition of 'living' then is really semantics. I consider it a static document simply because it can't change unless a certain process is followed. you consider it a living document simply because it can be changed. at least it's not the earlier living document where supreme courts and constitutional lawyers can redefine words and phrases in the constitution..........well, they still do that so i guess it still applies, making the law fluid and easily changeable.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Your summation is contradicted by the FACT that you had a mass shooting at Ft. Hood....a military base where numerous guns are but a stones throw away...trained people. Then YOU want to assume that a bunch of untrained CWP folk would prevent crimes in a civilian situation? Sorry, but no cop worth his salt is going to condone that train of thought. You can't see the situation being worse? What makes you think the CWP folk are all crack shots in panic situations? And if cops arrive quickly, how are they to determine who is who? Remember, the guy who tackled AZ Congresswoamn Gifford was almost shot by a CWP guy. And if you do a quick google search, you'll find a lot more actual fatalities committed by CWP folk with good intentions. this is why I say think it through.

So let's say an innocent person is killed. If they saved 4 or 6 other innocent people isn't that more important?

As for the contradiction re: Fort Hood that was one place out of how many? Mass shooters hit places knowing people don't have or are unlikely to have fire arms.

Where did I say it was a numbers game regarding innocent lives? And you're missing the point regarding Ft. Hood.....DESPITE being surrounded by trained soldiers with ready armament, you had a mass killing with an armeed perpetraitor. So for people to theorize that some civilian with a CWP or the like would save the day in Colorado is absurd.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Gatorman
The day President Ronald Reagan got shot he was surrounded by no less than 30 people all federal law officers or Secret Service and all packing heat to bust. President Reagan got shot anyway. And James Brady is still disabled from his wounds there. Just how many shots were there? All that heat and no one could stop it? Not even expertly trained protective officers? I don't even want some jack leg CWC or CWP anywhere close to me if the shit hits the fan.

Thats the advantage of the element of surprise, fool.....do you expect EVERY shooting situation is gonna be the same ?
Just like any fight situation, the one that strikes first will without doubt have an advantage.....
You people talk so stupid its an wonder you can walk an talk at the same time.

Think it through, Bravo: by your own admittance every shooting situation is different....but the common denominator IS the element of surprise! Or do you think jokers like the creep in Colorado sent out announcements prior to the shooting?

As Gatorman pointed out, PREPARED PROFESSIONALS WERE CAUGHT OFF GUARD....so for the pro-gunner wet dream of the perfect scenario to have some CWP come out the hero just doesn't cut it with the reality of the FACTS regarding this latest tragedy.

Think it through, man!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Think about this. Do you ever hear of anyone going into a shooting range and trying this bullshit? Ever wonder why?

Jeezus, talk about stretching to grasp a straw!

the whole point of these jokers is the element of surprise, you idiot! As Gatorman pointed out, Reagan got tagged SURROUNDED BY TRAINED, ARMED PROFESSIONALS. Idiots like you keep trying to fabricate some perfect scenario where a CWP CITIZEN saves the day. As I pointed out, given the facts surrounding Colorado, that fantasy of yours is just a wet dream.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Should we outlaw neck armor?

Nope, just register it like a gun or a car.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Again your post is pointless,.....the dude with the gun in his hand is far and away more powerful than the a hundred guns 10 feet away from their perspective users.
The gunman can empty one magazine and start on a new one before anyone can travel that measly 10 feet and ready his firearm....

Circumstances mean everything and circumstances can and do change in milliseconds....

YOu've nothing but strawman bullshit because you can't admit to being constantly wrong.

To quote you, Bravo..."Circumstances mean everything and circumstances can and do change in milliseconds"

so you had a perpetraitor come into a darkened theatre, hurl two smoke bombs and starts blasting at a bunch of screaming, panicked people running around in the dark hysterically. By your absurd CWP wet dream, an armed civilian pulls his gun, takes aim and gets a direct hit.

Really? You have to assume that other patrons don't mistake him as a collaborator and beat him to death, or he doesn't accidently shoot other patrons, or the cops don't arrive and blow him away. Given the FACTS of the tragedy and the timeline by which they occured, your wet dream is just that...a dream. Stop grasping at straws and think it through, Bravo.

 

[Taichiliberal]

A sad and unfortunate truth my wise friend.

"Buy more guns now .. they're coming after them"

"What if you and your fellow patriots were at a movie with your children and some wacko bursts in with automatic weapons and with body armor on from head to toe. Is that Magnum gonna' bring that sucker down .. or do you need somthin' really big with armor-piercing shells to do the job?"

I bet that ad is playing somewhere in the south.

Don't paint the South with that brush....you can find that mentality in all 50 states to some degree.