Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,814
|
Post by Fiddler on May 17, 2022 18:19:07 GMT
I love it when you paint yourself into a corner ... saves me a lot of work.
You're suggesting that despite what Goebbels says.. repeating something hundreds of times, as in hyper-douchebag Carlson's case, along with the same vile message being echoed thousands of times by dozens of other enemies of decency, has no effect on people.. In case you don't know it.. people are extremely gullible.. especially right-wingers and religious people .. right-wing and religion often going hand in hand. Are people influence by the words from the bible beaters they endure on Sundays?
And you are lying to yourself .. again .. if you think that doesn't happen and that the perpetrators aren't aware of the influence they have over the weak minded ..
Listen to one of your own regret his attempts to radicalize .. Glenn Beck.
“I remember it as an awful lot of fun and that I made an awful lot of mistakes, and I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language,” Beck said. “I think I played a role, unfortunately, in helping tear the country apart.” He added: “I didn’t realize how really fragile the people were. I thought we were kind of more in it together.”
Carlson (and the others) doesn't have to say "go buy a gun and shoot random people" word for word. He (they) painted a false picture of desperation.. of the certain demise of 'White People' in America. They insist that something must be done about it or else. A growing segment of that audience.. Dylann Roof, Patrick Crusius, Payton Gendron .. . . radicalized by self-serving rhetorical terrorists.. chooses to act
Want proof that it's easy to link talk with violent actions . ? Let's go straight to the top. You've got to be the most ignorant poster that I've encountered in decades of participating on these political discussion forums.
Long before Tucker Carlson said anything, who was touting the ascendancy of the political left because of demographic changes in this country? Democrats. Liberals.
YOU and your ilk were spreading that "whites will be in the minority" message long before any of the recent discussions and long before Carlson discussed.
You thought we wouldn't remember that, didn't you? Your f*cked up narrative counts on folks not remembering the liberal perversions of the past.
Perhaps it was the liberal message of "we're gonna take over with demographic changes" is the actual source of this Buffalo nutjob's inspiration.
Oops.
Good grief..
If stupid were a musical tone, you'd be a one note symphony.. in the style of Wagner of course.. unoriginal, pretentious, viciously racist .. long winded with nothing of value to say .. Your magnum opus.. a Symphony in Douche Major dedicated to slaver apologists everywhere..
That wasn't the Left touting the ascendancy of the political left because of demographic changes in this country ... That was your own lying right-wing pundits claiming that the Left is touting the ascendancy of the political left because of demographic changes in this country ...
Where do you think the Right's 'Great Replacement' theory came from .. it morphed from their own lies..
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,323
Member is Online
|
Post by petep on May 17, 2022 19:54:48 GMT
the left always falls for it...remember when kennedy conned the unions into thinking he was just a regular working guy...as soon as he got their vote he trashed them like any other liberal elite...
how many minorities did you see out having dinner with gavin newsome during the mandated lockdowns...running up 10k tabs on wine...they were holed up in their apartments...
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 17, 2022 23:26:57 GMT
The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting or crime control or individual rights. It was about the distribution of American military power. For this reason, I don't think firearm ownership (or tank ownership or battleship ownership or howitzer ownership...) counts as a fundamental individual right under the Constitution. This was the law for most of American history. Except, this was not the law for most of American history. Individual gun ownership was the norm when Constitution was written, part of state Constitutions, and individual gun ownership has remained part of our nation ever since. Individuals owned cannons. What I meant by "the law for most of American history" is that the Second Amendment does not provide a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. You are quite right that individuals have owned guns for all of American history. Compared to most other first world democracies, they pass hardly any, not a lot. Gun control that actually reduced the number of guns available to criminals and didn't cause a massive right-wing backlash. Killing is always bad, but it can be the lesser evil.
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 17, 2022 23:29:58 GMT
Thor the only war I would fight for would be to save my country. And that may be coming with the communist democrat party and its followers. Unfortunately, this is what it's coming to. America's right-wing has been so thoroughly propagandized, so drenched in fascism, that they desperately ache to murder liberals and leftists. It's unlikely this will end well.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on May 18, 2022 1:09:33 GMT
Except, this was not the law for most of American history. Individual gun ownership was the norm when Constitution was written, part of state Constitutions, and individual gun ownership has remained part of our nation ever since. Individuals owned cannons. What I meant by "the law for most of American history" is that the Second Amendment does not provide a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. You are quite right that individuals have owned guns for all of American history. Compared to most other first world democracies, they pass hardly any, not a lot. Gun control that actually reduced the number of guns available to criminals and didn't cause a massive right-wing backlash. Killing is always bad, but it can be the lesser evil. I get that is your point, that the 2nd Amendment does not convey any individual right... except as I pointed out, it clearly does since it has been that way since written, also mirrored in state constitutions, and has remained one throughout our history. As Democrats have pushed more severe bans, these have been tested in the courts and precedent has favored individual rights and was explicitly detailed in Heller vs DC as such. Many other western nations don't enjoy many of the freedoms we do, I am not sure what comparing us to them does, the point you were making was that hardly any gun control gets passed, which is just not true. If you mean, hardly any outright bans get passed, that is much different claim. Do you think we can't do more to target criminal activity, and the root of violence? Guns are not the cause of violence, they are a tool used for violence. It is why you see mass killings and other murders in other countries even without guns. Lots of stabbings are not going to be much better in the end, even if you could magically make guns disappear. Its not like gangs would just say, well, lets go get a job at McDonalds guys, now that we have no guns, no point in this anymore...
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on May 18, 2022 4:56:29 GMT
You never heard, minorities can't be racist. Only a majority can. Not true, but racism against a majority wont hurt them. That and history is why its ignored. What is racism? The definition says the common is by a majority. But it doesn't say it can't be by a minority. As I said, a majority is near to no effect if racism is aimed at them. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group
typically one that is a minority. But can be placed on a majority typically that is true. But a majority is not excluded. Even the white liberals here are placed often in the same category as the supremist because of their skin color. But little to no effect. That's majority advantage. Not effected by racism or stereotype placed on them. Stereotyping of a minority is the base of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on May 18, 2022 5:07:29 GMT
Yes, that is correct. However, knives, blunt objects, hands, feet, and fists aren't used in these mass murders. That's the issue where gun laws a brought up the most. Some Children getting killed in a gang gunfight does not get brought up. Mass murders like this one are. I'm not a big "take away guns" person, but removing certain guns I don't think violates any rights. 18 Mass shootings could be prevented. Just like if 5 out of 100,000 illegal immigrants commit murder, 5 murders could have been prevented. Prevent what we can. Mass Murders get way more attention. One gang member could kill just as many in a month that died in Buffalo in 1min. However, nobody cares. If he had a handgun, maybe 3 would have died. Mass murders are committed by the mentally ill getting ahold of these guns. Even if it was racial, it's a mental issue. You have to have something wrong with you to be that racist. Some of the most racist people are just ignorant, but not mentally ill to kill. Sorry, but basing decisions on our natural and Constitutional rights on how much cable news coverage an event gets is pretty stupid. And you're talking about a ban on a gun that is almost never used to commit murder. It's like banning Corvettes and thinking that car wrecks will drop significantly.
The Second Amendment was specifically tailored to allow the individual right to keep and bear a modern military rifle as a defense against the tyranny of the government. Im not sure why you mention cable news. Im not using that with the constitution. I understand that particular gun is not often used to commit murder. But it is used in mass murder. Majority of the guns are owned by people who won't kill anyone. All it takes is one. In regards to the media, it depends on the murder. Mass Murder or Cops on a minority are top story. Most others murders don't go past the city or town it happened in. The Second Amendment was specifically tailored to allow the individual right to keep and bear a modern military rifle as a defense against the tyranny of the government. Im not sure about that, where does it say that? Modern military rifle? By not allowing a felon have a gun, is it ok to take away that right from? A felon who performed a crime that didn't put any lives in danger.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,814
|
Post by Fiddler on May 18, 2022 14:53:28 GMT
Im not sure about that, where does it say that? Modern military rifle?
You're right.. The Founders had no idea that today's "N" Slaughterer 5000 (now available with Infinity Clip would be available to radicalized racist 18 year olds with little to no regulation, well or otherwise .. That is precisely why the prefatory clause is in the 2nd.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,323
Member is Online
|
Post by petep on May 18, 2022 15:38:56 GMT
Im not sure about that, where does it say that? Modern military rifle?
You're right.. The Founders had no idea that today's "N" Slaughterer 5000 (now available with Infinity Clip would be available to radicalized racist 18 year olds with little to no regulation, well or otherwise .. That is precisely why the prefatory clause is in the 2nd.
didn't we have a thread already on this, and you were made to look like an ignorant fool who had never read any of the writings of the authors of the second amendment...this weird notion that you believe "well regulated" somehow meant regulated though legislation is so beyond absurd... at what point do you give up and simply say OK, what I thought it meant is clearly not what they meant, but I personally disagree with their position and feel this amendment must be changed/replaced...
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,814
|
Post by Fiddler on May 18, 2022 17:16:03 GMT
You're right.. The Founders had no idea that today's "N" Slaughterer 5000 (now available with Infinity Clip would be available to radicalized racist 18 year olds with little to no regulation, well or otherwise .. That is precisely why the prefatory clause is in the 2nd. didn't we have a thread already on this, and you were made to look like an ignorant fool who had never read any of the writings of the authors of the second amendment...this weird notion that you believe "well regulated" somehow meant regulated though legislation is so beyond absurd... at what point do you give up and simply say OK, what I thought it meant is clearly not what they meant, but I personally disagree with their position and feel this amendment must be changed/replaced...
"To adjust by rule or method" ..
"Well regulated" (past tense) obviously doesn't mean "in proper working order" .. To Madison and the Founders it meant that the militia would be subject to rules.. that the government retained the power to regulate the militia. To see that it was "Well regulated"
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 18, 2022 20:22:56 GMT
What I meant by "the law for most of American history" is that the Second Amendment does not provide a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. You are quite right that individuals have owned guns for all of American history. Compared to most other first world democracies, they pass hardly any, not a lot. Gun control that actually reduced the number of guns available to criminals and didn't cause a massive right-wing backlash. Killing is always bad, but it can be the lesser evil. I get that is your point, that the 2nd Amendment does not convey any individual right... except as I pointed out, it clearly does since it has been that way since written No, the opposite is true. Remember what I am saying: I am not saying that the American public didn't own guns. I'm saying that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right in the same way as, say, speech or religion. Note the Supreme Court case United States v. Miller, (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. The Supreme Court said exactly what I am saying: the Second Amendment protects firearm rights in connection with a well-regulated militia, but it does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court said that the Second Amendment didn't protect the right to own a sawed-off shotgun, since it has no "reasonable relationship to the...efficacy of a well-regulated militia". Unfortunately, the Supreme Court screwed up in D.C. v. Heller, (2005), by saying the Second Amendment creates an individual fundamental right on the same order as speech and religion. Given the Constitution's text and history, that makes no sense at all. They certainly don't enjoy the freedom to be shot dead in a supermarket by a bigoted maniac.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on May 18, 2022 20:43:03 GMT
Im not sure about that, where does it say that? Modern military rifle?
You're right.. The Founders had no idea that today's "N" Slaughterer 5000 (now available with Infinity Clip would be available to radicalized racist 18 year olds with little to no regulation, well or otherwise .. That is precisely why the prefatory clause is in the 2nd.
They had no idea we would have the internet either... but the fundamental principle remains. They did not specify that freedom of speech only pertained to ink and quill and literally what you can speak... just as they did not specifically say "musket" because they new small arms changed over time and new of various firearms technologies. The core principle being, that if tomorrow we have laser guns, and those are the standard small arms, we get to have those too.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on May 18, 2022 20:51:49 GMT
I get that is your point, that the 2nd Amendment does not convey any individual right... except as I pointed out, it clearly does since it has been that way since written No, the opposite is true. Remember what I am saying: I am not saying that the American public didn't own guns. I'm saying that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right in the same way as, say, speech or religion. Note the Supreme Court case United States v. Miller, (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. The Supreme Court said exactly what I am saying: the Second Amendment protects firearm rights in connection with a well-regulated militia, but it does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court said that the Second Amendment didn't protect the right to own a sawed-off shotgun, since it has no "reasonable relationship to the...efficacy of a well-regulated militia". Unfortunately, the Supreme Court screwed up in D.C. v. Heller, (2005), by saying the Second Amendment creates an individual fundamental right on the same order as speech and religion. Given the Constitution's text and history, that makes no sense at all. They certainly don't enjoy the freedom to be shot dead in a supermarket by a bigoted maniac. Why are you citing a limit on particular guns as if that somehow says there is no individual right at all to own any gun? I am not arguing there can be no limits, clearly and obviously there are and they have been deemed Constitutional. The argument is that the 2nd Amendment IS an individual right, my pointing out history is to highlight this and point out states have done the same in their Constitutions as well. There is no "unfortunately" about heller vs DC at all, and the majority clearly spelled out at length this history, the sentence structure, AND how the wording is an individual right just as in the same context as other rights. There are mass shootings and mass killings in most if not all other western nations. You are being silly now. Our laws and Constitution outline a right to life and no one can legally shoot you dead in a supermarket. Such actions are not tolerated as the person who did this was arrested and will be charged and tried by a jury of his peers.
|
|