Started By
Message

re: Dayton, OH bar mass shooting - 10 dead, 27 wounded

Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:24 am to
Posted by Jester
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2006
34717 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:24 am to
quote:

like clock work.


You know it's coming because it's a very simple and easy rebuttal to one of the most common arguments the gun nuts make.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
44312 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:24 am to
quote:

Nah, it was not.



I'll ask you the same question:

You think these people didn't exist then?

ETA: And since you seem to be so derisive of "gun nuts", why don't you explain exactly why the 2nd was written since you are obviously not biased on the subject?

This post was edited on 8/5/19 at 10:26 am
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
138145 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:26 am to
quote:


Nah, it was not.

You're saying the 2A exists solely for people to protect themselves from government?
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
18925 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:32 am to
quote:

You know it's coming because it's a very simple and easy rebuttal to one of the most common arguments the gun nuts make.



It's not a rebuttal, it's ignorance of a SCOTUS decision in v. Miller. Typical of poorly educated gun-control loons, they don't know how stupid they truly are.
Posted by CarRamrod
Spurbury, VT
Member since Dec 2006
58309 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:39 am to
quote:

You know it's coming because it's a very simple and easy rebuttal to one of the most common arguments the gun nuts make.


and it is very simple to say sure.
Posted by MightyYat
StB Garden District
Member since Jan 2009
25029 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:42 am to
quote:

You're saying the 2A exists solely for people to protect themselves from government?


When it was written at the time, yes, it was to allow citizens to protect themselves from government whether it be their own or via invasion.

quote:

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.


ConstitutionCenter.org
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
18925 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:44 am to
quote:

But there is data showing gun legislation CAN make a difference. Don’t give up so quickly. :)


This is an example of how poor the STEM education is amongst wide swathes of the population. This poor ignorant kid has no idea that the methodology in this study is flawed and designed to show the results intended by the authors, which takes it from science to nothing more than propaganda. Gun-owership by suicide proxy is one of the most common tools used by pro-gun-control researchers and the most thoroughly debunked (right next to the gun magazine delivery proxy).

A fairly thorough take down of this "study".
Posted by MF Doom
I'm only Joshin'
Member since Oct 2008
11754 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:45 am to
Damn, the shooter was a "pronouns in my bio" guy? Didn't see that coming
Posted by dallastigers
Member since Dec 2003
9591 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:48 am to
quote:

... It was specifically to help the citizens not be afraid of the British military. The 2nd and 3rd amendments were written solely for that purpose...


So around 6 years after Revolutionary War and also after deciding Articles of Confederation could not just be amended we added amendments to new Constitution to finally deal with the British problem???

I think Congress made it clear the now called Bill of Rights (2 of 12 submitted didn’t initially get ratified including 27th amendment) was to get states on board that feared new constitution was creating too strong of a federal govt.
quote:

Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Posted by MLCLyons
Member since Nov 2012
4766 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:48 am to
quote:

Hypothetical: Rape counts are on the rise....who’s to blame? Porn? Over sexualized society? Scantily dressed women? Pick one, we’ll ban it


More people reporting them? Broader definitions of rape? In 2013 the definition was changed:
quote:

For more than 80 years, the agency defined rape as “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

In 2013, however, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program redefined rape by incorporating the concept of consent, removing “forcible” and specifying the type of acts involved.

The agency now defines rape as the “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

The new definition now includes “male and female victims and offenders, and reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape, especially non-consenting acts of sodomy, and sexual assaults with objects,” the UCR staff said in a statement.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
138145 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:49 am to
quote:

When it was written at the time, yes, it was to allow citizens to protect themselves from government whether it be their own or via invasion.

I think it's fair to say that the 2A was extended to personal protection from other citizens. Even in 1776.
Posted by MightyYat
StB Garden District
Member since Jan 2009
25029 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:52 am to
quote:

I think it's fair to say that the 2A was extended to personal protection from other citizens. Even in 1776.


Via interpretation, maybe. The initial reasoning behind the amendment was militia/military based though.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
138145 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:54 am to
quote:

Via interpretation, maybe. The initial reasoning behind the amendment was militia/military based though.



We have to assume certain realities of life in historical context. Self protection with a firearm is one of those.
Posted by MightyYat
StB Garden District
Member since Jan 2009
25029 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:07 am to
quote:

We have to assume certain realities of life in historical context. Self protection with a firearm is one of those.


It was for self-protection. That's clear. I'm saying that AT THE TIME that protection was from an invasion or if the government had to be overthrown. It wasn't really intended as protection from the common criminal. Maybe they just didn't have shithead losers running around trying to murder their own people back then. I don't know.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
138145 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:09 am to
quote:

It was for self-protection. That's clear. I'm saying that AT THE TIME that protection was from an invasion or if the government had to be overthrown. It wasn't really intended as protection from the common criminal.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with your assessment of the second amendment.
Posted by danfraz
San Antonio TX
Member since Apr 2008
24550 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:11 am to
The Dayton mayor just stated they think the shooter had 250 rounds with him, including what he had already fired. Number may change but that's going to be close to it.

Who needs that amount of bullets on hand for protection?
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
18925 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:11 am to
The concept of armed self-defense was in the British Common Law from well before the US Constitution was drafted.
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
18925 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:14 am to
quote:

Who needs that amount of bullets on hand for protection?


Needs? Stupid argument. How about for target practice? How about just because I can you witless turd?
Posted by Bedhog
Denham Springs
Member since Apr 2019
3741 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:15 am to
those brave officers who approached that mayhem while citizens ran away. I have mad respect for them. LINK
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
138145 posts
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:20 am to
quote:

The Dayton mayor just stated they think the shooter had 250 rounds with him, including what he had already fired. Number may change but that's going to be close to it.

Who needs that amount of bullets on hand for protection?


What is the "safe" amount of ammunition someone should have on hand? How would you like to enact/enforce said amount of ammunition possession?
Jump to page
Page First 36 37 38 39 40 ... 45
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 38 of 45Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram