And they drive on the wrong side of the road, and talk funny."Ah the spurious UK/Australia argument.
So sorry but unlike the US, those countries have access to mental healtj care....for everyone." R #81
Do you have any proof that any of these 3 is determinative?
Or could it just be Ockham's Razor plays a role here, and it's that fewer guns has resulted in less gun violence?
"Spurious"?! Me?! Look in the mirror!
d7 #82
That might seem sensible. Problem is, writing into law such detail as:
"Product liability from the manufacturers to the $#@!ers selling massive amounts of guns just outside the jurisdiction that has strict controls." d7
is easier said than done.
YOU MAY BE RIGHT!
I along with a hundred million of my closest friends believe the Republican position about school shootings:
- oh ain't it horrible -
- oh ain't it horrible -
- We're not going to do anything to change it. -
leaves something to be desired.
BUT !!
"The devil's in the details." Writing the statutory language that when implemented would actually have significant beneficial affect,
AND THEN
getting it through both houses of congress, and the president's signiture; easier said than done.
"It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
Well elucidated sir."I believe every nation is in danger of tyranny and/or overthrow. The course of human history tells us this is so. That is not to say it will happen tomorrow, or next month or even next year. But, it is a constant threat." TD #92
And therein lies the dilemma.
Defend our 2nd Amendment, and continue to lose our countrymen; tragically too many of them in childhood. We're losing them by the hundreds!
BUT !!
Surrender our guns "for our own protection" as Hitler and others have done, and we risk losing countrymen by the millions.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
"It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
Rune (02-19-2018)
The SCOTUS doesn’t agree with your militia premise, nor do I. Scalia stipulated that states could regulate within reason, but could not infringe. Gorsuch is another originalist and there will be another one or two before Trump is done. It does seem that a lot of young people, indoctrinated in Marxist madrassahs, might vote for repeal at some point.
R #95
Charming.
But yours is a pseudo-correction, a bogus point.
I never asserted you said I am spurious. So your #95 is pointless.
Further, you're masquerading your evasion as an address.
If you REALLY wish to refute, correct, or clarify, you would:
- quote the incorrect assertion
- explain why you believe it incorrect
- offer your alternate perspective.
Instead what we get from you is: "I didn't say you are spurious but your argument certainly is."
That's not refutation. It's unsubstantiated contradiction.
"It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
So you deny court precedents and court rulings, thus in essence you deny the judicial element of your legal system. It is in writing, set in precedent (legally binding).
Please insight me on how the courts are wrong or somehow I have missed the terming of legally binding and precedent??
As I am sure your aware the Second Amendment states "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."
Now it seems this is a matter of opinion since the courts and their legally binding precedents mean nothing. To begin the sentence the notion of "militia" defines the topic of this clause. Thus when using simply literacy skills and phrasing the notion they are referring is the right to bear arms as a military individual.
I cannot also help but point this notion out relating to the 14th Amendment. It states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" The laws pertaining to firearms and the use of firearms are depriving individuals of their right to life. The final line terming "equal protection", appears to be failing. How a gunman who is awaiting trial and innocent teenagers and kids who have passed (along with their families) are receiving equal protection is beyond my intelligence.
So if you want to bring to the table the Bill of Rights Debate, then you should be ashamed. I have heard few Americans stand up for the 14th Amendment but so many for the 2nd Amendment, why is this because guns seem to be valued more than justice, protection and life. The 2nd Amendment is merely an excuse to cover the United States hideous gun culture, if you deny this I would assert you look past the 2nd Amendment and onto the news, the true events and heck maybe even the 14th Amendment.
Lower courts have ruled in favour of this military premise, however it is not denying that the Supreme Court is of a higher and more elite status. Granted.
I am unsure of your position and what solution you may pose. It seems you liken the quoting of Judges and backing your belief up merely by facts and evidence rather than morals or conscience. To term this as politely as possible...the US is like a spoilt child. The gun is the dangerous toy.....those anti firearm are the parents who attempt to remove this danger. Yet those pro-firearms argue that its their right, however rights are merely privileges. You treat them well they remain. You treat them poorly they become spoilt, and yes for everyone. Hypothetically if that mother found that toy to be dangerous she wouldn't let her niece or her friends children maintain that in their possession thus like a web the danger of this toy would spread. Through this the danger is removed for most except some negligent and disobeying parents and children.
I cannot help but also point this notion out relating to the 14th Amendment. It states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" The laws pertaining to firearms and the use of firearms are depriving individuals of their right to life. The final line terming "equal protection", appears to be failing. How a gunman who is awaiting trial and innocent teenagers and kids who have passed (along with their families) are receiving equal protection is beyond my intelligence.
So if you want to bring to the table the Bill of Rights Debate, then you should be ashamed. I have heard few Americans stand up for the 14th Amendment but so many for the 2nd Amendment, why is this because guns seem to be valued more than justice, protection and life. The 2nd Amendment is merely an excuse to cover the United States hideous gun culture, if you deny this I would assert you look past the 2nd Amendment and onto the news, the true events and heck maybe even the 14th Amendment.
Bookmarks