Shooting reported at Umpqua Community College in Oregon.....Another one :{

[jchambers]

According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government.

If it's so clear cut how did this happen:

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita..." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."

Even in its most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (Heller 200, the Supreme Court still stated: "... the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Unless you're claiming you have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than the Supreme Court does, I'm going to disagree with you on all this.

There's gonna be a day when they make handguns that shoot bombs and ppl will cite the 2nd amendment then too.

They already make those and the government uses them to kill hundreds of people every day.

There's going to be a day when words on the internet cause someone to be killed, and people will cite the First Amendment then too. Why don't we let the government completely regulate the internet? Hell, why don't we require people to have registrations to say certain things? If the 2nd can be regulated, why not the first?

 

[Master Zik]

According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government.

If it's so clear cut how did this happen:

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita..." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."

Even in its most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (Heller 200, the Supreme Court still stated: "... the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Unless you're claiming you have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than the Supreme Court does, I'm going to disagree with you on all this.

There's gonna be a day when they make handguns that shoot bombs and ppl will cite the 2nd amendment then too.

They already make those and the government uses them to kill hundreds of people every day.

You kinda missed my point if you read the post I quoted.

I'm talking about bomb shooting handguns for the everyday citizen. Like miniature hydrogen bombs are the ammo.

 

[jchambers]

According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government.

If it's so clear cut how did this happen:

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita..." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."

Even in its most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (Heller 200, the Supreme Court still stated: "... the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Unless you're claiming you have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than the Supreme Court does, I'm going to disagree with you on all this.

There's gonna be a day when they make handguns that shoot bombs and ppl will cite the 2nd amendment then too.

They already make those and the government uses them to kill hundreds of people every day.

You kinda missed my point if you read the post I quoted.

I'm talking about bomb shooting handguns for the everyday citizen. Like miniature hydrogen bombs are the ammo.

According to that quote, those would be allowed as long as their use was intended to preserve the efficiency of a "well regulated militia".


"The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."


This is absolutely false and absurd. Anyone who has actually read the Constitution should be able to see that the Second Amendment was not meant to only apply to the military. The US government is very adept at using mental gymnastics to make their system work how they want it to. The Constitution was supposed to be a safeguard against this. Anytime that you are dealing with the government in court, specifically when it pertains to your rights, you are basically playing a basketball game where your coach and the refs are all working for the other team. It's their court.

 

[Master Zik]

According to that quote, those would be allowed as long as their use was intended to preserve the efficiency of a "well regulated militia".

It sucks when you have to spell out and explain it for somebody.

My point was to highlight how absurd that would be.

 

[leavemeglazzies]

When the second amendment was written, there was pretty much no difference in advantage between weapons that the government/army could own and what a private person could own. So looking at the second amendment through modern eyes, it becomes very evident that the rationale used for including the second amendment in the constitution is ridiculously outdated. It's been outdated for at least 100 years and it becomes even more laughably outdated each year and decade as new modern weapons are developed and the power gap between the weapons the government owns and private citizens own widens.

If you think that private citizens should have the right to own guns because it would be unjust to allow the evil despotic government to own them while private citizens remain defenseless, then how do you feel about other weapons? According to that reasoning, then surely there should be a level playing field in your weapon-based utopia and private citizens should have access to the same weapons that the government has access to. So with that in mind, please answer me these two questions:

1. Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because we know for a fact that government has nuclear weapons?

2. If you don't think that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, then why do you think that they should be allowed to own ordinary guns? What exactly is your rationale for thinking that guns are okay for private ownership, but nuclear weapons are not? What is the magic line between the two?

If the government is so evil, then why is it that republicans allow it to have a military so powerful that is spends more U.S. tax payer money on weapons than all these other countries combined??

Using your own idiotic rationale, then shouldn't the evil despotic government have a military that is weak, so that private citizens that paid for that military would have an easier time fighting it should the government get out of control? Why make the military this strong then? Please, enlighten me...

And by the way: The country is almost 250 years old. In all that time, when have the people EVER been even close to taking up arms and fighting against the government? Unless you count the Civil War as such an event, and that was over 150 years ago. And the government still won.

This is absolutely priceless: The same right wingers who enabled the Patriot Act, which gives the government the power to interfere in any area of your private life if they feel like it are going to sit here and give lectures about how we should be suspicious of the government? 

 Priceless!

 

[rollout]

 
When the second amendment was written, there was pretty much no difference in advantage between weapons that the government/army could own and what a private person could own. So looking at the second amendment through modern eyes, it becomes very evident that the rationale used for including the second amendment in the constitution is ridiculously outdated. It's been outdated for at least 100 years and it becomes even more laughably outdated each year and decade as new modern weapons are developed and the power gap between the weapons the government owns and private citizens own widens.

If you think that private citizens should have the right to own guns because it would be unjust to allow the evil despotic government to own them while private citizens remain defenseless, then how do you feel about other weapons? According to that reasoning, then surely there should be a level playing field in your weapon-based utopia and private citizens should have access to the same weapons that the government has access to. So with that in mind, please answer me these two questions:

1. Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because we know for a fact that government has nuclear weapons?

2. If you don't think that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, then why do you think that they should be allowed to own ordinary guns? What exactly is your rationale for thinking that guns are okay for private ownership, but nuclear weapons are not? What is the magic line between the two?

If the government is so evil, then why is it that republicans allow it to have a military so powerful that is spends more U.S. tax payer money on weapons than all these other countries combined??

[IMAGE]

Using your own idiotic rationale, then shouldn't the evil despotic government have a military that is weak, so that private citizens that paid for that military would have an easier time fighting it should the government get out of control? Why make the military this strong then? Please, enlighten me...

And by the way: The country is almost 250 years old. In all that time, when have the people EVER been even close to taking up arms and fighting against the government? Unless you count the Civil War as such an event, and that was over 150 years ago. And the government still won.

This is absolutely priceless: The same right wingers who enabled the Patriot Act, which gives the government the power to interfere in any area of your private life if they feel like it are going to sit here and give lectures about how we should be suspicious of the government? 

 Priceless!

Keep in mind that a growing number of Americans (in this case, firearm owners) are Libertarians, NOT Republicans. So your tirade about military spending and government surveillance of citizens is "preaching to the choir" when it comes to us.

The fact that we waste so much $$$ trying to be the world police sickens me, not to mention it makes the rest of the world hate us when we stick our nose where it doesn't belong. The US should have a sufficient military to defend our country, and not much past that. Don't even get me started on the Patriot Act, NSA, etc...

 

[jchambers]

 
When the second amendment was written, there was pretty much no difference in advantage between weapons that the government/army could own and what a private person could own. So looking at the second amendment through modern eyes, it becomes very evident that the rationale used for including the second amendment in the constitution is ridiculously outdated. It's been outdated for at least 100 years and it becomes even more laughably outdated each year and decade as new modern weapons are developed and the power gap between the weapons the government owns and private citizens own widens.

If you think that private citizens should have the right to own guns because it would be unjust to allow the evil despotic government to own them while private citizens remain defenseless, then how do you feel about other weapons? According to that reasoning, then surely there should be a level playing field in your weapon-based utopia and private citizens should have access to the same weapons that the government has access to. So with that in mind, please answer me these two questions:

1. Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because we know for a fact that government has nuclear weapons?
2. If you don't think that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, then why do you think that they should be allowed to own ordinary guns? What exactly is your rationale for thinking that guns are okay for private ownership, but nuclear weapons are not? What is the magic line between the two?

If the government is so evil, then why is it that republicans allow it to have a military so powerful that is spends more U.S. tax payer money on weapons than all these other countries combined??

[IMAGE]

Using your own idiotic rationale, then shouldn't the evil despotic government have a military that is weak, so that private citizens that paid for that military would have an easier time fighting it should the government get out of control? Why make the military this strong then? Please, enlighten me...

And by the way: The country is almost 250 years old. In all that time, when have the people EVER been even close to taking up arms and fighting against the government? Unless you count the Civil War as such an event, and that was over 150 years ago. And the government still won.

This is absolutely priceless: The same right wingers who enabled the Patriot Act, which gives the government the power to interfere in any area of your private life if they feel like it are going to sit here and give lectures about how we should be suspicious of the government?   Priceless!

Keep in mind that a growing number of Americans (in this case, firearm owners) are Libertarians, NOT Republicans. So your tirade about military spending and government surveillance of citizens is "preaching to the choir" when it comes to us.

The fact that we waste so much $$$ trying to be the world police sickens me, not to mention it makes the rest of the world hate us when we stick our nose where it doesn't belong. The US should have a sufficient military to defend our country, and not much past that. Don't even get me started on the Patriot Act, NSA, etc... >:

LOL. There are so many assumptions and so much partisan rhetoric in that post it is ridiculous. If someone thinks that a belief in private ownership of firearms, protected by the Constitution, is a sign of support for The Patriot Act, being a Republican, and supporting foreign wars for profit, then they are completely deluded and lost in the left/right paradigm.


"When the second amendment was written, there was pretty much no difference in advantage between weapons that the government/army could own and what a private person could own. So looking at the second amendment through modern eyes, it becomes very evident that the rationale used for including the second amendment in the constitution is ridiculously outdated."


This can be argued successfully, but the fact remains that we have a legal system with a specific structure. It is actually impossible to ban guns/arms legally according to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not grant or create a right to bear arms. It protects that right which already exists. The Constitution declares that the Federal government has no right to infringe upon this right. If you approach it from a practical standpoint, and say that times have changed, we need to do this for safety, etc. , then you are arguing against the specific rights that have been enumerated in this document. This type of reasoning led to the 4th amendment being murdered as well. Now the police can search you at any time without a warrant by forcing a dog to bark, or claiming that they smell drugs.If the government can just do whatever they want ,and pretend that it is legal when it is clearly not, then we no longer live in a land ruled by law and none of our civil rights actually exist anymore. If we throw out the 2nd, then all of our rights can be disregarded. This means that we live in a police state not governed by an agreement among ourselves and society. A police state is enforced by power and oppression, with no regard to what is legal or illegal. I don't really like the idea of a government who just makes up their rules on the fly and enforces them with prison and theft.You may feel otherwise. Some people believe in a full repeal of the Bill of Rights.

 

[blco02]

leavemeglazzies you realize Bernie Sanders is a gun rights advocate, right?

 

[jchambers]

leavemeglazzies you realize Bernie Sanders is a gun rights advocate, right?

Somewhat. Rand Paul is the only candidate with a Constitutional view of gun control. A lot of Republicans pretend to be in support of guns and the Constitution, but their voting records show otherwise. On another note, most politicians also pretend to support the 2nd, while allowing the 4th to be trampled indiscriminately.

 

[rollout]

Quote:

@LeaveMeGlazzies you realize Bernie Sanders is a gun rights advocate, right?

Somewhat. Rand Paul is the only candidate with a Constitutional view of gun control. A lot of Republicans pretend to be in support of guns and the Constitution, but their voting records show otherwise. On another note, most politicians also pretend to support the 2nd, while allowing the 4th to be trampled indiscriminately.

I stand with Rand. I see he has won some straw polls, but what do you think his chances are in the actual primary? It is sad he has to be lumped in with the GOP (*shudder*) just to have a chance at being elected, but the two-party system is not going to release their stranglehold on power unless it is blown up from within by a third-party candidate getting elected and pushing for reforms. Every day I sit here shaking my head at Trump's poll numbers. I can't understand how so many people could like that guy, or even think he would be the best choice for president

About your earlier post, Hillary is a statist, so I guess it's no surprise that her minions would think similarly. (But it's probably giving most of them too much credit to say they are intentionally statist, most just hear about "free $$$" and go for that without thinking through the consequences... of course that goes for most of the Democrat constituency.) 

 I'm not FOR Bernie, but I'd rather it be him than Hillary... Unfortunately, I think his moderate views on Gun Control are actually going to be his undoing and Hillary will get the W

 

[jchambers]

 

[zapatohead408]

I'm a Bernie supporter, but I don't want my guns to be touched.

 

[EddieDoyers]

Man fudge Hilary

 

[yogurt]

LOL. There are so many assumptions and so much partisan rhetoric in that post it is ridiculous. If someone thinks that a belief in private ownership of firearms, protected by the Constitution, is a sign of support for The Patriot Act, being a Republican, and supporting foreign wars for profit, then they are completely deluded and lost in the left/right paradigm.


"When the second amendment was written, there was pretty much no difference in advantage between weapons that the government/army could own and what a private person could own. So looking at the second amendment through modern eyes, it becomes very evident that the rationale used for including the second amendment in the constitution is ridiculously outdated."


This can be argued successfully, but the fact remains that we have a legal system with a specific structure. It is actually impossible to ban guns/arms legally according to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not grant or create a right to bear arms. It protects that right which already exists. The Constitution declares that the Federal government has no right to infringe upon this right. If you approach it from a practical standpoint, and say that times have changed, we need to do this for safety, etc. , then you are arguing against the specific rights that have been enumerated in this document. This type of reasoning led to the 4th amendment being murdered as well. Now the police can search you at any time without a warrant by forcing a dog to bark, or claiming that they smell drugs.If the government can just do whatever they want ,and pretend that it is legal when it is clearly not, then we no longer live in a land ruled by law and none of our civil rights actually exist anymore. If we throw out the 2nd, then all of our rights can be disregarded. This means that we live in a police state not governed by an agreement among ourselves and society. A police state is enforced by power and oppression, with no regard to what is legal or illegal. I don't really like the idea of a government who just makes up their rules on the fly and enforces them with prison and theft.You may feel otherwise. Some people believe in a full repeal of the Bill of Rights.

I'm a believer that voting should be a privilege, and not a right

 

[tekthemaestro]

 
I'm a believer that voting should be a privilege, and not a right

whether its a right or a privilege... ur vote doesnt determine **** anyways. the electoral college has got to go.

 

[yogurt]

True, I still think that just cause you're a citizen shouldn't mean you have a say. If I'm doing accounting at NASA, I'm not going to chime on on the best way to launch a rocket, so likewise if you don't actually know what you're talking about, save your vote. I don't know anything about politics so you won't see me at the booth.

 

[jchambers]

True, I still think that just cause you're a citizen shouldn't mean you have a say. If I'm doing accounting at NASA, I'm not going to chime on on the best way to launch a rocket, so likewise if you don't actually know what you're talking about, save your vote. I don't know anything about politics so you won't see me at the booth.

I don't agree with voting being a privilege, but at least you can admit that you don't know enough about the issues to vote. I respect that. Part of the reason that things are so messed up right now is that people vote more on personality and what the media wants them to believe, than the actual voting records of the candidates. You have someone like Bush who is portrayed as pro gun, ,yet he admits that he would sign the assault rifle ban if it was brought in front of him. His supporters claim to be for small government and conservatism, yet they support his for profit wars, increased governmental power and things like the Patriot Act. You have Obama who promises the world when running for office, then falls in line and becomes Bush 2.0 after he is elected. Now you have people actually considering voting for Trump or Hillary.

 

[yogurt]

Everyone should have the chance to vote, but before that they should earn that vote by at least demonstrating they understand what they are writing on the ballot. Some sort of political competency test or something to ensure people aren't just blindly voting for someone. You know how many people I know who support Hillary just because she's a woman? They can't name a single thing she would do that they like, but they just want to see a woman in office.

If you have wild views and are okay with that, that's fine. But if you think one thing and are in actuality doing another, maybe you should sit this one out for the sake of everyone else.

Also, all of this actually comes down to if you believe who you vote for makes a difference. I have a feeling all the candidates will end up doing the same things anyways, and even if I strongly felt one way, one individual vote really is inconsequential, even without the Electoral College to further marginalize it.

 

[jchambers]

Everyone should have the chance to vote, but before that they should earn that vote by at least demonstrating they understand what they are writing on the ballot. Some sort of political competency test or something to ensure people aren't just blindly voting for someone. You know how many people I know who support Hillary just because she's a woman? They can't name a single thing she would do that they like, but they just want to see a woman in office.

If you have wild views and are okay with that, that's fine. But if you think one thing and are in actuality doing another, maybe you should sit this one out for the sake of everyone else.

Also, all of this actually comes down to if you believe who you vote for makes a difference. I have a feeling all the candidates will end up doing the same things anyways, and even if I strongly felt one way, one individual vote really is inconsequential, even without the Electoral College to further marginalize it.

I agree. I don't know if I even believe that the voting is real and not rigged anyways .

 

[blco02]

Veryyyyy interesting: Hillary says Australia's forced gun buyback program something "worth considering" implementing here.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-australian-style-gun-control-worth-considering-for-u-s/

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Veryyyyy interesting: Hillary says Australia's forced gun buyback program something "worth considering" implementing here.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-australian-style-gun-control-worth-considering-for-u-s/

Seems to me her emphasis was being put on the idea of a buy back program in general. And not necessarily a forced or mandatory approach. We're the examples of buy back programs in the cities she mentioned and other countries like Canada forced as well? Was the cash for clunkers program she mentioned also forced? I genuinely don't know. If they were all mandatory I'd agree with the conclusion that you're clearly trying to lead us to. But She said she isn't to clear on the details but the approaches IN GENERAL are worth looking into because they worked for other countries. Atleast that's what it sounded like in the video.

 

[rollout]

Veryyyyy interesting: Hillary says Australia's forced gun buyback program something "worth considering" implementing here.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-australian-style-gun-control-worth-considering-for-u-s/

I wanna know where the $$$ for a buy-back program would come from... there a bajillion guns in the US of A. That could get expensive real quick.

 

[blco02]

frenchbreadbuilds Australia’s program was mandatory. Citizens in Australia were given no choice but to hand over their weapons at a price set by the government. And Hillary is now floating the idea out there that the us should have the same program.

 

[cashbanks]

Everyone should have the chance to vote, but before that they should earn that vote by at least demonstrating they understand what they are writing on the ballot. Some sort of political competency test or something to ensure people aren't just blindly voting for someone. You know how many people I know who support Hillary just because she's a woman? They can't name a single thing she would do that they like, but they just want to see a woman in office.

If you have wild views and are okay with that, that's fine. But if you think one thing and are in actuality doing another, maybe you should sit this one out for the sake of everyone else.

Also, all of this actually comes down to if you believe who you vote for makes a difference. I have a feeling all the candidates will end up doing the same things anyways, and even if I strongly felt one way, one individual vote really is inconsequential, even without the Electoral College to further marginalize it.

Damn this is too real.

I agree. I don't know if I even believe that the voting is real and not rigged anyways .

View media item 858337

 

[rollout]

@jdfrenchbread23 Australia’s program was mandatory. Citizens in Australia were given no choice but to hand over their weapons at a price set by the government. And Hillary is now floating the idea out there that the us should have the same program.

Good luck with that, Hillary. I think she would have a hard time recruiting people to do the collecting...