So, in case you missed it, all sorts of kids (backed by all sorts of astroturfing Progressive gun grabbing groups) marched, using their 1st Amendment Rights to take away Other People’s 2nd Amendment Rights. Interestingly, they were all protected by people with firearms in the streets, yet, do not want to have the same protection in the schools. Then there’s this
“We want to do whatever it takes to protect schools.”
Ban ‘assault’ rifles?
“YES!”
Close the ‘gun show loophole’?
“YES!”
Require students to use clear bags?
“Whoa, whoa. Let’s hold on a second.” https://t.co/mX4nbDfCeL
— Derek Ryan (@longhornderek) March 24, 2018
Hogg: “After we come back from Spring Break, they’re requiring us all to have clear backpacks…it’s unnecessary. It’s embarrassing for a lot of the students.” #Axios360 pic.twitter.com/xvR8aP5th1
— Axios (@axios) March 23, 2018
Huh.
https://twitter.com/dangainor/status/977166325121519616
And
An opaque backpack is your business, a clear backpack is the state butting into your business.
Now do you get why Big Government butting into people’s business is something Americans have fought wars to prevent, David?
— Ch'at bin'bi (@Leslie_H20) March 23, 2018
Perhaps these kids should realize that once you star ceding your Rights to government, government will want even more.
And since I wrote this before the marches, this should give an idea of what they want to do
https://twitter.com/kira_lerner/status/977584573918928896?s=20
As I saw, 177 shot and 28 killed in Chicago so far this month. Why no marches? Libs don’t seem to care about black folk.
Sorry, not so bad. Only 117 shot.
Hogg proves that children are to be seen, and not heard.
Hoss proves that Cons are to be seen, and not heard.
Do you think the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to possess any firearm you want?
Yes, it does actually. And no, a cannon, nor a tank isn’t a firearm. Learn the definition of word. A cannon is artillery and a tank is an armored vehicle. None of them are firearms.
We didn’t mention cannons or tanks, did we. Learn to read what people write. But we understand why you wish to change the subject.
So it’s your belief that:
proscribes regulation of machine guns, magazine capacity, bump stocks and ammunition?
First they came for our opaque backpacks on school grounds…
What’s next, our cell phones during school hours?
“Those who would give up cellphones for security deserve neither.” — Genjamin Franklin Jones Sprint salesman
“Those who would give up cellphones for security deserve neither.” — Benjamin Franklin Jones Sprint salesman
“Those who would give up cellphones for security deserve neither.” — Benjamin Franklin Jones, Sprint salesman
Good thing my rights are non-negotiable and certainly not subject to the whims of children.
Guns don’t have rights. People do. The right to self preservation is the most basic civil and human right.
You believe our 2nd Amemdment –
– gives you unrestricted access to any and all firearms.
Nearly every America disagrees with you.
Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.
We understand why the right wants to conflate 1)reasonable limits on firepower with 2)the complete abolition of 2nd Amendment rights.
Nearly every American supports reasonable limits on firepower and few support the complete abolition of 2nd Amendment rights.
We understand why you feel the need to lie about it.
Stop stalking me. I have made it very clear I have no intentions of discussing anything with you.
Not to speak for Professor Hale, but that is what I believe, yes. What part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear to you?
The First Amendment also has the absolute requirement, “Congress shall make no law.” Tell me, just what “reasonable restrictions” do you believe there should be on the freedom of speech, or the press, or religion, or assembly?
Well, in our mother country, the United Kingdom, someone was recently jailed for saying things that other people found hurtful. That’s the result of what some people — meaning: the government — thought was a ‘reasonable restriction’ on the freedom of speech. The McDonald and Heller cases were cases based on what the governments of the District of Columbia and the city of Chicago thought were ‘reasonable restrictions’ on the right to keep and bear arms. To many jurisdictions, a ‘reasonable restriction’ on the right to keep and bear arms is not being allowed to have them at all. Were it not for the Second Amendment, you can count on it: there would be many, many more jurisdictions, including entire states, which would completely ban private ownership of firearms.
While we appreciate your zealotry (we typically appreciate all zealots for what they bring), you go off the rails when you state that the 1st Amendment is absolute. We don’t need to recap speech limits do we? You know what they are.
Again, we are not advocating repeal of the 2nd Amendment. We own dozens of guns. We DO advocate reasonable restrictions on firearms possession. You disagree, but there’s no reason to lie about it, unless you believe the truth doesn’t serve you well.
The Supreme Court has ruled before that the 2nd Amendment –
– is not absolute. You obviously disagree. Which is your right.
We AGREE with the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment allows Americans to possess firearms.
We also note that famous gun-grabber Antonin Scalia said,
“Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed” on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. “It’s up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are.”
He even mentioned shoulder-fired rocket launchers which satisfy the “keep and bear” verbiage in the 2nd. My reading is that he thinks it Constitutional to regulate rocket launchers.
You obviously disagree with Justice Scalia.
Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Jeffery wrote:
Yes, actually, you do. There may be consequences to speech which people might dislike — the old saw that the First Amendment doesn’t protect your right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater does not mean that we prohibit people from going to the movies just because they might yell “Fire!” — but the restrictions you will cite have nothing to do with prior restraint of speech. The restrictions on the Second Amendment you advocate are most similar to prior restraint, because you wish to prevent people from owning firearms just because they might do something wrong with them in the future.
You might wish to read the Pentagon Papers case to see what the Supreme Court thought about prior restraint of the freedom of speech and of the press.
And yes, I do disagree with the late Justice Scalia.
Hah! Mr Hogg whined that girls would be embarrassed because they have to carry sanitary napkins or tampons, which might be seen, not that those things are so ostentatious that they couldn’t be disguised. The real problem is that people might see that they had a joint in there.
Of course, given transparent backpacks, all of the boys would quickly insure that they were seen carrying condoms — all sized extra large, whether appropriate for them or not — and not a few of the girls would show them off as well.
An AR-15 wouldn’t fit in a kid’s bookbag.
We get why you want to attack children. The threat is that if 18 yr olds become politically active (i.e., they start voting), the Con movement is in trouble.
Right now the GOPhers are working on strategies to keep this from happening.
A Glock and a couple extra clips would fit in a backpack.
The esteemed Mr Hogg wants action taken, for school safety, don’t you know, but as soon as a school safety measure is proposed that would require him to do something, then whoa, Nellibelle, we can’t have that!
Yes, Mr Hogg will one day be eligible to vote, if he isn’t already. Given that we do allow homosexuals and the wimpy boys to vote, such cannot be denied to him. But the majority of adult Americans own firearms; he might have a problem trying to impose his will on the majority.
That’s untrue. In fact, only 3% of Americans own 50% of all firearms.
From the far-right The Blaze:
It seems the same people are buying more and more guns. I have two gun safes filled with guns and my wife wishes we had zero. Does that make her an adult gun owner?
If you could, you would change that wouldn’t you? And that’s why I keep guns. To protect American from people like you.
JeffreyJeffery wrote:G Gordon Liddy stressed that he, as a convicted felon, could not and did not own any firearms, but his wife did. Nevertheless, I am uncertain where the legal distinction is: assuming that you and your wife live together, ownership of the weapons in your home might jointly include her. It might make a difference if Missouri is a community property state.
We’d be much better off, as a nation, if the homosexuals and wimps and other liberals did not vote, but no, I wouldn’t take the privilege of voting away from an American citizen.
But I am amused by your statement. You have just validated the comments of those whom you have previously derided, those who have said that an armed citizenry is necessary to protect the people from the tyranny of government.
JeffreyJeffery said that he had “two gun safes filled with guns.” Now, we all assume here that you are a law-abiding citizen, who has never shot anyone, or threatened anyone, with your firearms. Why, then, should Beta Hogg have the right to say that your Second Amendment rights ought to be infringed? Why should you see your rights curtained because he thinks so?Donna,
Putting your latent homosexuality aside (perhaps because you parents wanted a little girl), I agree with some limits on keeping and bearing firearms because I am not an ammosexual.
Guns are not part of my being. They are tools. I grew up in the hills of the Missouri Ozarks where most guys had .22s and shotguns and deer rifles. We hunted squirrels, rabbits, quail – we shot targets and crows and blackbirds, too. Guns were part of our culture but were not THE culture. I don’t recall much clamoring for Army-man weapons. Something is different today.
Ammosexuals instill mystical properties in their firearms – ammosexuals equate their manhood with their guns. It restores their lost privilege, their lost status – it gives them power.
Further, much like Justice Scalia, I believe that the Constitution (and the Supreme Court) gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Also, like the Justice, I agree there can be limits on those firearms.
This gray area will be settled politically, something these kids appreciate.
Given that, for the left, Trump = Hitler, you’d think that they’d be the last people who’d seek ‘reasonable restrictions’ on firearm ownership, the way the leaders of the Weimar Republic did in 1931.
There’s more at the original.
So your worry is that the US government will limit access to semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, and enact strict background checks, leading to the government forcing certain ethnic groups out of the country or into death camps, following by invading neighboring countries?
I do have a hard time following the fears of the right, seeing as how those fears, though real, are not BASED on identifiable reason.
What is your fear related to regulations of AR-15 type rifles and high-capacity magazines and stricter laws on access to weapons?
P’raps you’ll recall the Heller and MacDonald cases, where the local jurisdictions were not trying to “limit access to semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines,” but to curtail people’s rights to own handguns. The surrender to the government of our basic rights, even based upon ‘reasonable restrictions,’ is the creeping surrender to the government to continue to curtail those rights, perhaps incrementally and perhaps not.
Just like it should not be any of the government’s business what religion you are, or what political positions you happen to hold, it should be none of the government’s business what weapons you have, or why you want them. It is only if you have committed a crime — meaning: have actually been convicted, with due process of law — that you should have your Second Amendment rights curtailed. Truly instant background checks can be tolerated, but waiting periods or delays infringe upon the rights of American citizens.
The fear, and more importantly the reality, is that criminals who want to obtain that type of weapon will always find a way, no matter how many restrictions are placed on them.
So your fear is that the government will limit you to shotguns or six-shooters for home and personal defense, but the bad guys will have Glocks or AR-15s.
Why don’t the bad guys use fully automatic weapons now? Wouldn’t that increase their advantage over a man with an AR-15?
Mostly because most of the bad guys are stupid thugs who cannot modify their weapons to full auto, and would wind up disabling their weapons if they tried to modify them. Of course, most of the bad guys are also armed with handguns anyway.
Actually, the thug with a fully automatic rifle is going to be less dangerous than a man with an AR-15, because ‘pray and pray’ results in more wasted ammunition. If you aren’t trained with fully automatic fire, the weapon’s recoil is going to ruin your aim, and even if it doesn’t, you’re more likely to put ten bullets in one target and zero in others. Had Nikolas Cruz had a fully automatic M-14, he’d probably have killed fewer people, expending his clip in just a couple of seconds.
Further, use of full auto ruins barrels; that’s why the military reconfigured the M-16 and M-4 to three round bursts.
Amusing speculation on your part.
So which is it, are the crooks to dumb or too smart for automatics… or is it that assault rifles are too hard to get – almost as if gun restrictions can work. It sounds that if assault rifles are so horrible that crooks are smart for avoiding them. We understand we trapped you and you had to construct a tale.
If assault rifles are as fatally flawed as you claim why are they being manufactured by the millions for militaries around the world? We understand why you wish to change to subject.
We understand.
Jeff,
He is not speculating. He is giving known facts. Do you ever stop and think that you know very little and are not very bright?
Yes, most criminals are too stupid to use fully automatics; if they were smart, they wouldn’t be criminals.
Yes, I know: you think the clips of Rambo shooting a .50 cal held in one arm with the ammo belt wrapped around his other are real war documentaries, but it just ain’t so.
It was the United States Army which decided to limit the M-16 to a three round burst, because they saw that full auto was both less effective per round and damaged the weapons. They didn’t do this because they were all nice and squishy liberals; they did it to make the weapn more effective in war fighting.
Yet the civilian A%15 and variants are not the same thing as a military version of the same weapon. No matter how many times you try and make that claim doesn’t make it so.
And we understand why you would have to lie to try and make a point.
People who hate have to lie and are afraid of the truth.
Hate is all the left has.
Typing “Hate is all the left has.” is all gitarcarver has.
Maybe gitarcarver should read the conversation before emitting a kneejerk comment on something that wasn’t claimed.
#LearnToRead
So you don’t believe the civilian variant of the AR15 is not an assault rifle?
You have claimed that throughout every discussion and now you want to back away from that claim?
Dang dude, the hate is getting so strong in you that you cannot remember what you have said.
The nignorant unhinged angry little black fella is ranting in circles again.
“So your fear is..â€. No, the reality is simply that criminals don’t follow gun laws. Simple.