Page 16 of 45 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 448

Thread: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

  1. #151
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,890

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by smb View Post
    I take it then from post that you are strict constructionist on the Constitution?
    Not necessarily.

    But whether one is a strict constructionist or a broad constructionist, it's pretty hard to argue against the plain, unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment.

    In any case, that doesn't change the fact that comparing a car to a weapon is invalid. The reason for the invalidity still stands.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  2. #152
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Not necessarily.

    But whether one is a strict constructionist or a broad constructionist, it's pretty hard to argue against the plain, unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment.

    In any case, that doesn't change the fact that comparing a car to a weapon is invalid. The reason for the invalidity still stands.


    So why haven't you linked or cited it using the word guns?

  3. #153
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,890

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    please cite its DIRECT text.
    Sure:

    Amendment II

    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.

    Bill of Rights Transcript Text

    Now...if you want to get into a brouhaha over what the 2nd Amendment "means", you'll have to do it without me. For me, it is very clear.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  4. #154
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,890

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    So why haven't you linked or cited it using the word guns?
    The 2nd Amendment was not limited to firearms (guns)...but it doesn't exclude them, either.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  5. #155
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Sure:




    Now...if you want to get into a brouhaha over what the 2nd Amendment "means", you'll have to do it without me. For me, it is very clear.


    Odd, to me I don't see "guns" in the text.

    I see arms--- which is short for armaments, which depending on whether one strictly or loosely interprets the document and the founders' intents...

    At the time it meant knives, bows, muskets, etc.

    At the time it was to prevent government tyranny. What would those 3 weapons do against an f16 missiling you from 20 miles?

    If you *want* to extend its meaning to 9mm, ak47, and modern GUNS, why do you ignore all other MODERN ARMS?


    You see, if you actually, read, think, and pause before posting, you can avoid looking so foolish. If the 2A were about "guns", guns would be in its text explicitly.

  6. #156
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,890

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    Odd, to me I don't see "guns" in the text.

    I see arms--- which is short for armaments, which depending on whether one strictly or loosely interprets the document and the founders' intents...

    At the time it meant knives, bows, muskets, etc.

    At the time it was to prevent government tyranny. What would those 3 weapons do against an f16 missiling you from 20 miles?

    If you *want* to extend its meaning to 9mm, ak47, and modern GUNS, why do you ignore all other MODERN ARMS?


    You see, if you actually, read, think, and pause before posting, you can avoid looking so foolish. If the 2A were about "guns", guns would be in its text explicitly.
    Didn't you read what I said to you?

    Sorry, dude...if you want to debate the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, you'll be doing it without me. Heck, I'll go even further and suggest you go to one of the many threads on this forum where this has already been hashed out. It might save you some time.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  7. #157
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Didn't you read what I said to you?

    Sorry, dude...if you want to debate the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, you'll be doing it without me. Heck, I'll go even further and suggest you go to one of the many threads on this forum where this has already been hashed out. It might save you some time.

    It might save you some time to mean what you say, and say what you mean. I didn't hold a gun to your head when you said the 2A actually mentioned guns explicitly.

  8. #158
    Educator
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    09-08-16 @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    916

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Not necessarily.

    But whether one is a strict constructionist or a broad constructionist, it's pretty hard to argue against the plain, unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment.

    In any case, that doesn't change the fact that comparing a car to a weapon is invalid. The reason for the invalidity still stands.
    You are right that it does not matter just not for the reason you think. As for the car=weapons argument I agree with you comparing the two is ridiculous. That was what I was pointing out in my response to someone who was trying to compare the two.

    That being said your argument to Constitutionality of gun control is pertinent.

    If you are going to argue from the strict constructionist point of view then you the Constitution would only grant you the right to bear arms that were in existence at the time of the Constitution. Therefore you would have the unfettered right to own any number of muzzle loading black powder guns you wish. That along with swords, black powder cannonade and mortars you are more than welcome to own free of regulation by the government. However since modern weapons are not included under a strict constructionist interpretation then they can be regulated as much or as little as the legislature sees fit unfettered by Constitutional constraints. Even if you take a more liberal strict constructionist view and believe that the fore fathers could envision automatic weapons and such there is still no Constitutional impediment to regulating gun ownership in order to promote the general welfare as it is clear that machine solely designed to maim and kill is a public health hazard and as such under the general welfare clause Congress does have the power to legislate legislation as long as that legislation does not outright ban weapons.

    If you are broad constructionist than it there is no Constitutional impediment because the congress shall have the power to legislate gun control under the necessary proper clause. Either way meaningful, legitimate gun control IS Constitutional by any measure you want to stand it up to.

    If you are arguing from

  9. #159
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by AJiveMan View Post
    No, the best line in the article was that their version of DCFS (Albuquerque's) had custody of their child.
    True.

    I meant "best joke line", or "funniest line".

    Because a 3-y/o would obviously have been suspected of attempted murder until proven otherwise.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #160
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,655

    Re: Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Why mandatory? Every state has different laws pertaining to the amount of training, some only on written, and some have none.

    There is no correlation at all, in studies, that shows states with mandatory training have fewer gun incidents than those with less training or no training. (there is one study between WA and OR, where WA with a higher population, a shall issue state, and no training requirements at all, has fewer gun incidents/accidents than OR which has fewer people, is a may issue state, and has training requirements. I dont have link to it anymore tho.)

    And it's not something that has any bearing on crime at all.

    Is the assumption that people just wont get training if they are not forced to? In some states, it costs people $200 or more to fulfill such requirements. A way to actively keep some people from cc permits.

    If that is your assumption, why? And if no data supports it, why mandate it? (Again, with no data to support otherwise, the assumption IS that people get necessary training on their own, not that they dont get training.)
    Well, because frankly, I dont believe that no data support it. If so, why is it offered at all, then?

    While its nice to see your correlations, they do not necessarily lead to causation since there are a massive number of other factors at play. But common sense tells us that safety training is a good thing.
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

Page 16 of 45 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •