Jump to content

'Don't worry about the NRA,' Trump tells U.S. governors


webfact

Recommended Posts

OK! Great! So now the americans know how to get their Greatest idiot to go to school; hopefully the next shooter lies in hiding and waits for trumpy-boy to run (un)armed, brainless and with high speed  into this school.....
May the rest be in the american history books, under the chapter "how to get rid of the most repulsive president of all times"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't see any reason why anyone should be allowed to own a military style assault rifle either. But, that is the weapon the 2nd Amendment specifcally protects ownership of. While we're waiting on the Constitutional Convention that modifies that amendment wouldn't it make more sense to go after the weapons that kill 20 times more Americans each year than rifles do (including assault rifles), and which Americans have no Constitutional guaranteed right of possession; ie: handguns?

 

"and which Americans have no Constitutional guaranteed right of possession; ie: handguns?" 

 

Incorrect, the 2nd 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."   (My itallics)

 

Interestingly as late as 2015 the American Supreme Court upheld the 2nd amendment.

" In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.Jun 26, 2015"

 

 

 

"Arms" being firearms, swords, pikes etc in general, that includes handguns, as it did in at the time of the writing on the 2nd amendment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Note to 2nd Amenders:  An amendment can be repealed.  It has happened.  The 13th Amendment was repealed 16 years after it was instated. ; and how that affects the

 

Just so you know, the 2nd Amendment wasn't chizled in marble by Gods on Mount McKinley.

 

 

 

True,  but consider how many of the American voting public own firearms and how that influences ambitious politicians.

 

People can sneer all they like about the American firearms owners and their "Gun culture", but in the main the gun owners are law abiding folk who firmly believe they have a god given right to an armed self defense.


When I was over there I found them a polite and welcoming people, nothing like the bullshit stereotype commonly pedaled in the general media.

 

Seriously, if there's going to be a debate/discussion on the American 2nd amendment and gun ownership;  maintain a rational and objective approach rather than a vilification of anyone who holds an opposing view.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kimber said:

Seriously, if there's going to be a debate/discussion on the American 2nd amendment and gun ownership;  maintain a rational and objective approach rather than a vilification of anyone who holds an opposing view.

You mean like how the NRA and it's members vilify anyone who holds an opposing view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rogerluli said:

Can there possibly be one person on the planet who believed him...:tongue:

35% of Americans will truly believe that he would have run in unarmed. 

 

The other 65% of Americans wished that he did run in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kimber said:

"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."  

Notice, in the middle of that sentence, the word 'and' is not before the word 'the right....

With the word 'and', it would differentiate between between 'a well regulated militia' and 'the People'. 

 

However, without the word 'and' it can be interpreted to describe 'the People' as being the people comprising 'a well regulated militia.'

 

I proves what I said in an earlier post:   Gun-huggers and religionists and neo-nazis can interpret thing to prove what they want it to prove.  

 

For example:  'The man would like to grab a pussy at the cat house',
could mean two very different things:

 

#1   He would like to go to a the place known as the Cat House, to pick out a cute cuddly pussy cat.

or 

#2.  He would like to do what Trump would do at a whore house.

 

2 hours ago, Kimber said:

True,  but consider how many of the American voting public own firearms and how that influences ambitious politicians. People can sneer all they like about the American firearms owners and their "Gun culture", but in the main the gun owners are law abiding folk who firmly believe they have a god given right to an armed self defense. When I was over there I found them a polite and welcoming people, nothing like the bullshit stereotype commonly pedaled in the general media. Seriously, if there's going to be a debate/discussion on the American 2nd amendment and gun ownership;  maintain a rational and objective approach rather than a vilification of anyone who holds an opposing view. 

That's like a person saying, 'I went walking in a neighborhood in Syria (or Afghanistan or N.Korea or northern Nigeria....) and the people greeted me in friendly ways.   

The fact remains, there are many Americans who are addicted to their guns and ammo, and are not friendly to strangers.  Sometimes they shoot strangers for no good reason.  Other times they shoot their own family members, whether intentionally or not. 

 

The US is saturated with military grade weapons and ammo.  It's waaaaaaaay out of kilter.  Mass killings will continue there on a daily basis, and NRA, Trump, gun makers/sellers, will continue to try and do all they can to obfuscate the issue, hoping it wafts away with the next flurry of Trump tweets about kneeling football players or Ivanka's high heels, or whatever horseshit Trump uses to divert from the serious issue at hand.   

 

Sometimes, right after a gun atrocity, Trump and his enablers simply say "it's too early now to discuss this issue."   That's what dufus Trump said for a week after the Las Vegas mayhem. 

Trump and his low-life conspirators can fool the deplorables and rednecks, but they can't fool the majority of Americans, who are smarter than they are, and care more for the well-being of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kimber said:

 

"and which Americans have no Constitutional guaranteed right of possession; ie: handguns?" 

 

Incorrect, the 2nd 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."   (My itallics)

 

Interestingly as late as 2015 the American Supreme Court upheld the 2nd amendment.

" In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.Jun 26, 2015"

 

 

 

"Arms" being firearms, swords, pikes etc in general, that includes handguns, as it did in at the time of the writing on the 2nd amendment.

 

 

 

Handguns are not a militia weapon. The Supreme Court generally rules very narrowly on the specifics of the case brought before them. Bring the right case and you're more likely to get the right decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding to Trump telling Americans "don't worry about the NRA"

 

I won't worry when people are in less danger of having a bowling pin sized hole blown through their bodies for no good reason.  

 

quote from a wired.com article:

 

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange.

 

Boomer continues:  Thanks Trump, the NRA, Rednecks and all those being paid by the NRA, including Russian agents:   You're all making the US a dangerous place.  You're party to killing and maiming innocent Americans of all ages.   If ISIS or Al Qaeda sent over special forces which killed 100 Americans/day, then perhaps Republicans might sit up and try to do something.  But if it's the NRA enabling the bloodshed, Republicans just cower in dark corners, counting their NRA money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!! We decry money politics and corruption here in the land of smiles but the NRA and complicit politicians are in a league of their own

If it is true that guns don't kill people, what about issuing all the NRA families' school kids with guns to both test that proposition and let Darwinism settle the debate. Also, media rights would be through the roof - what a deal that would be, Mr P!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next time there's a mass shooting, get Trump over there real quick.  Keep Marine 1 idling, so he can zip over to the scene, run in, disable or kill the bad guys.  Kelly can go with him.  

 

I knew there was some reason to elect Trump, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what he was good for.   Now it's clear.   He's the super brave hero the US needs to run in to save innocents in the line of gun fire.  Yay Trump!  P.S. political cartoonists will have a field-day with this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Credo said:

He may talk the talk, but it remains to be seen if he will walk the walk, or if he will do on the immigration issue with dreamers, and go back on his pledge.   

 

 

I thought that was what was implied. You'd think after almost 15,000 posts I'd have got the hang of these message boards by now. I'm hopeless with those emoticons too. I never know the right one to choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I thought that was what was implied. You'd think after almost 15,000 posts I'd have got the hang of these message boards by now. I'm hopeless with those emoticons too. I never know the right one to choose.

It's a little hard to know what is implied.    I hope my post simply clarified it.   

 

It's a little like sarcasm.   It's hard to know sometimes if people are being serious or not.   As far as the emoticons go, I usually just use the like button.   I don't always like a post because I agree (although that's usually the case).   Sometimes people make a really well reasoned post that deserves a like, even if I don't agree with them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6 minute video, below, illustrates how insane things have become in the US, even though it was aired 1.5 yrs ago.  Here's a synopsis:  A gun-loving gun-advocate Texas mom, who was actively campaigning for gun ownership for everyone, and loved by NRA (mutual love, I'm sure) .....shoots and kills both her near-20 year old daughters.     

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2018 at 11:51 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't see any reason why anyone should be allowed to own a military style assault rifle either. But, that is the weapon the 2nd Amendment specifcally protects ownership of. While we're waiting on the Constitutional Convention that modifies that amendment wouldn't it make more sense to go after the weapons that kill 20 times more Americans each year than rifles do (including assault rifles), and which Americans have no Constitutional guaranteed right of possession; ie: handguns?

By your thinking, ownership of a bazooka or a tank would also be protected by the 2nd amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2018 at 11:42 PM, lannarebirth said:

 

Handguns are not a militia weapon. The Supreme Court generally rules very narrowly on the specifics of the case brought before them. Bring the right case and you're more likely to get the right decision.

Bloviating much?

"The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

By your thinking, ownership of a bazooka or a tank would also be protected by the 2nd amendment. 

I wouldn't think so, Wars were fought by soldiers armed with muzzleloader weapons when the Constitution was written. Now they are fought by soldiers armed with assault type weapons capable of firing in different modes.  I'm not defending ownership of any of those weapons I'm only trying to suggest a path forward in keeping with the law as outlined in the Constitution. People's feelings aren't going to change the Constitution but there is a well defined process for doing so. If it is important to you I'd make your state legislature aware of your wishes. I have already done so with mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Bloviating much?

"The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

Yeah, I'm aware of that case and ruling. So, you think that's the last word on the subject until the end of time?  Different cases, different courts, sometimes different rulings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except from this online article titled, "How the NRA rewrote the 2nd Amendment"

 

"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

 

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yeah, I'm aware of that case and ruling. So, you think that's the last word on the subject until the end of time?  Different cases, different courts, sometimes different rulings. 

On 2/27/2018 at 11:42 PM, lannarebirth said:

 

Handguns are not a militia weapon. The Supreme Court generally rules very narrowly on the specifics of the case brought before them. Bring the right case and you're more likely to get the right decision.

9 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yeah, I'm aware of that case and ruling. So, you think that's the last word on the subject until the end of time?  Different cases, different courts, sometimes different rulings. 

I know that in the Hunting of the Snark, it said that if you say something 3 times, it's true. But really, this is just pure bloviation. As far as I'm aware there is only 1 Supreme Court. So are you saying that sometime in the future, a different Supreme court will decide differently?  And are you saying that a different case may lead this Supreme Court to rule against the unrestricted possession of rifles and such. You can't have it both way. You can't say that the Supreme Court won't rule against the possession of rifles no matter what case is brought before it but will rule against unrestricted possession of handguns if the right case is brought before it. But that's the kind of bind you find yourself in when you bloviate. This Supreme court has made it blindingly clear that handguns are as Constitutionally protected as are rifles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article quote above, in my prior post, show clearly how the Supreme Court was trying to work to protect Americans from gun violence.   Unfortunately, with Right Wing gun-addicts and Trump running gov't now, it's likely more anti-US-safety Supreme court justices will get put in office. 

 

Yet another way, among many, that Trump is making the US a more dangerous place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I know that in the Hunting of the Snark, it said that if you say something 3 times, it's true. But really, this is just pure bloviation. As far as I'm aware there is only 1 Supreme Court. So are you saying that sometime in the future, a different Supreme court will decide differently?  And are you saying that a different case may lead this Supreme Court to rule against the unrestricted possession of rifles and such. You can't have it both way. You can't say that the Supreme Court won't rule against the possession of rifles no matter what case is brought before it but will rule against unrestricted possession of handguns if the right case is brought before it. But that's the kind of bind you find yourself in when you bloviate. This Supreme court has made it blindingly clear that handguns are as Constitutionally protected as are rifles.

 

They might rule against one, both or neither. And yes, there is only one Supreme Court body but it's make up is always in flux. 

 

Let's take the Dred Scott decision for instance. That was rendered moot by subsequent constitutional amendments, but do you really think it wouldn't have been overturned in time by subsequent Supreme Court rulings? Most Supreme Court justices are not strict constructionists. Most of them look out the window from time to time or check to see which way the wind is blowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

They might rule against one, both or neither. And yes, there is only one Supreme Court body but it's make up is always in flux. 

 

Let's take the Dred Scott decision for instance. That was rendered moot by subsequent constitutional amendments, but do you really think it wouldn't have been overturned in time by subsequent Supreme Court rulings? Most Supreme Court justices are not strict constructionists. Most of them look out the window from time to time or check to see which way the wind is blowing.

But you're the person who claimed that rifles were protected by the 2nd amendment, but handguns aren't.  Now you're saying that it depends on the court. In other words, depending on how the case was presented or changes to the members of the court, they could just as easily rule that rifles aren't absolutely protected by the 2nd amendment. Make up your mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

But you're the person who claimed that rifles were protected by the 2nd amendment, but handguns aren't.  Now you're saying that it depends on the court. In other words, depending on how the case was presented or changes to the members of the court, they could just as easily rule that rifles aren't absolutely protected by the 2nd amendment. Make up your mind.

 

My point is and was, I think it easier to make the case that rifles are a weapon militias would customarily use, while handguns are not. Handguns may be an armament but they have no real utility as a militia weapon, which are the weapons the 2nd amendment seeks to protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...