NRA sues Florida to block new gun law - CNN today

[SirGareth]

From what I read their case is pretty weak. Raising the age for gun purchases is not going to be found unconstitutional.

Much as I hate to admit it you are correct, schizophrenia is a common feature of the lawyers and their courts.

You can vote at 18 but not consume an adult beverage because you are too immature for the later ?

With a gun you might take down a few dozen max (the Happyland night club murderer took down 87 people with a buck's worth of gasoline), but the voters in 1930's Germany brought about the deaths of 50 million souls by exercising poor judgment in exercising the former.

WTF?

 

[TurtleDude]

Nixon changed the age of the vote to 18 it can change back to 21. Although I think it was fdr that changed the military age to 18. And since it became an amendment that might be difficult.
Sure abortions at 21 as soon as the age of consent is changed to 21 for both sexes.

The 18 voting age was an amendment

 

[Hari Seldon]

I prefer Mango flavored Kool-Aid myself.

Good for you.

 

[Hari Seldon]

So do I.

You also **** the NRA?

 

[SirGareth]

The 18 voting age was an amendment

I know, Nixon was a lawyer.

 

[cabse5]

The present conservative SCOTUS is nothing to depend on as far as the 2nd. The second should be repealed because it is out of date. We don't have militias any more.

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

This was written by 18th century lawyers. In 18th century legalese, the sole intent of these amendments were stated in the preamble: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

When this was written there were state militias & every member had a musket. But now there are no militias because we have standing armed forces. This amendment has been misused for the greedy gun makers.

The red may be true but subsequent SCOTUS rulings on the second amendment using their own ideologies and not The Constitution, IMO, have made the second an individual right.

 

[MTAtech]

The present conservative SCOTUS is nothing to depend on as far as the 2nd. The second should be repealed because it is out of date. We don't have militias any more.

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

This was written by 18th century lawyers. In 18th century legalese, the sole intent of these amendments were stated in the preamble: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

When this was written there were state militias & every member had a musket. But now there are no militias because we have standing armed forces. This amendment has been misused for the greedy gun makers.

The 2nd Amendment was written before there was a military and state militias were needed to protect the nation from invasion and before mass killing weapons were in private hands. It's obsolete.

A better Amendment would be: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be unduly infringed by the various States nor the federal government. The States shall have the sovereign right to regulate firearms within their borders and the Congress shall have the power to regulate firearms between them. Nothing herein shall prevent the Congress from regulating firearms used against aircraft, armored vehicles or the like."

 

[TurtleDude]

The 2nd Amendment was written before there was a military and state militias were needed to protect the nation from invasion and before mass killing weapons were in private hands. It's obsolete.

A better Amendment would be: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be unduly infringed by the various States nor the federal government. The States shall have the sovereign right to regulate firearms within their borders and the Congress shall have the power to regulate firearms between them. Nothing herein shall prevent the Congress from regulating firearms used against aircraft, armored vehicles or the like."

Here is a far better one

No civilian law enforcement agency, federal or state, shall possess, issue, obtain or use any firearm that is not freely available to lawful citizens residing within the jurisdiction of said law enforcement agency.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The italicized may be true but subsequent, IMO, ideological SCOTUS rulings on the second amendment using their own ideologies and not The Constitution have made the second an individual right.

Nope, "the people" means the same thing in the 1A, 2A and 4A.

 

[cabse5]

From what I read their case is pretty weak. Raising the age for gun purchases is not going to be found unconstitutional.

Denying the 18-20 year olds their right to own a gun will be sticky. I'd disagree. The law will be knocked down my SCOTUS. What the NRA wants is to delay the law then have SCOTUS eventually destroy the law.

 

[cabse5]

Nope, "the people" means the same thing in the 1A, 2A and 4A.

The arms of state militias came from individuals therefore the rights of the people to own guns wouldn't be infringed to achieve the regulation of state militias that protect the US since the US didn't have a standing army because they didn't want to be like England. My sentence is almost as convoluted as the second amendment.

You want definitive information on what the original meaning of the second amendment was? I suggest you read The First Congress by Fergus M. Bordewich. He states the 2nd was introduced by J. Madison as an individual right but was passed by the first congress as a militia right.

 

[SirGareth]

The 2nd Amendment was written before there was a military and state militias were needed to protect the nation from invasion and before mass killing weapons were in private hands. It's obsolete.

A better Amendment would be: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be unduly infringed by the various States nor the federal government. The States shall have the sovereign right to regulate firearms within their borders and the Congress shall have the power to regulate firearms between them. Nothing herein shall prevent the Congress from regulating firearms used against aircraft, armored vehicles or the like."

Lucky for the USA, our founders were a good deal smarter than you are. We could have gone the way of Europe.

 

[SirGareth]

Denying the 18-20 year olds their right to own a gun will be sticky. I'd disagree. The law will be knocked down my SCOTUS. What the NRA wants is to delay the law then have SCOTUS eventually destroy the law.

They are denied the right to enter a bar. I'm sorry to say we should have legal adults and legal children. I'm not fond of "meta-citizenry"

On the other hand lawyers love it.

 

[MSgt]

If 18 y/o's are too immature to own guns, they too immature to vote.

They are. Although, the country is full of grown conservatives who believe that Global Warming is a liberal hoax and that Noah should be a Founding Father. So perhaps it should come down to administering IQ tests.

 

[cabse5]

They are. Although, the country is full of grown conservatives who believe that Global Warming is a liberal hoax and that Noah should be a Founding Father. So perhaps it should come down to administering IQ tests.

If you believe this about conservatives (believe me, I'm not one), you may be dumber than the conservatives you portray.

 

[MSgt]

as long as there are criminals and big government control freaks, the second amendment is more important today than it ever was. Liberals want to repeal it because they hate the fact that the NRA called BS on their bogus claims that gun control is crime control.

Sure, despite a time when the colonies had just defeated the greatest Empire on the planet to gain independence, and needing militias to continue fighting that Empire, the Second Amendment is more important today than ever because gun nuts have convinced themselves that liberals are big meanies and that Mexicans and Muslims hide under their beds. It's quite funny how you people like to pretend how weak liberals are, but then turn around and behave as if you have been bullied by them your entire lives.

Your irrational generalities about "liberals" is exactly why the mass shootings continues. And the fact that a 14-year old cannot purchase an AR-15 is gun control. Don't let such terminology scare you too completely.

 

[cabse5]

They are denied the right to enter a bar. I'm sorry to say we should have legal adults and legal children. I'm not fond of "meta-citizenry"

On the other hand lawyers love it.

Not fond of meta-citizenry? How do you feel about all people who reside in the US, for example? Do they all deserve US citizenship?

 

[MSgt]

my kind being rational logical and well educated citizens

Um, no. You are find of defaulting the issue into a generalized you-versus-liberals thing, thus you lack rationality, logic, and education.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The arms of state militias came from individuals therefore the rights of the people to own guns wouldn't be infringed to achieve the regulation of state militias that protect the US since the US didn't have a standing army because they didn't want to be like England. My sentence is almost as convoluted as the second amendment.

You want definitive information on what the original meaning of the second amendment was? I suggest you read The First Congress by Fergus M. Bordewich. He states the 2nd was introduced by J. Madison as an individual right but was passed by the first congress as a militia right.

Trying to convince me that folks agreed to use the word people when they really meant to use the word(s?) militia (members?) is simply not going to work.

 

[MSgt]

this law has been on the books for 50 years, so you think one case is grounds to change it? if someone is old enough to serve in the military or be tried as an adult, and VOTE, its idiotic to claim they are too young to buy a rifle

Why is it that in so many cases, you people default to exploiting the military for your personal needs to argue? Politicians do it when they want to push an agenda and pretend that military readiness is somehow connected. And individuals do it just to regurgitate the political argument.

You are not on some crusade to protect the dignity of 18 or 19 year old troops. If you really give a ****, whine about their inability to purchase a beer after Boot Camp or when they return from combat. You are merely looking to define your gun Rights through that 18 or 19 year old. It's a selfish argument that tells the parents of dead kids to go **** themselves because you, as a person well beyond the age of 21, likes your toys. So what do we actually have here...


- Deny the diagnosed schizophrenics like Holmes or Lanza from handling/purchasing? - NO!..."The schizophrenics have the Right to due process, thus should have guns until they slaughter people and prove that he shouldn't have his Right!"

- Deny the diagnosed mentally ill nineteen year old like Cruz from purchasing an AR-15? - NO!..."He has the Right because he can join the military!"

In the end, you bring nothing to the table but apathy and a celebration of the next mass shooting that could have been prevented, simply because you imagine your own personal Rights being wrapped up into any sense of responsible legislation. Thus, you define your Rights through the Rights of the 19-year old schizophrenic. And you call yourself rational and logical?

 

[prometeus]

Would you be ok it there was a law that made it 21 to vote or 21 to get an abortion?

That is a retarded comparison. The limitation has to be considered in the context of the consequence no as an ignorant partisan talking point.

 

[SirGareth]

They are. Although, the country is full of grown conservatives who believe that Global Warming is a liberal hoax and that Noah should be a Founding Father. So perhaps it should come down to administering IQ tests.

My IQ has been measured at 140 and although I'm not proud of what I was born with I would take odds that it is higher than yours.

The issue of CAGW (aka "Global Warming") and Noah's Ark are not to be conflated. They are separate and distinct issues as anyone with a modicum of intelligence should intuitively understand.

The biblical flood story is a myth that some people choose to believe based on traditions that make them feel closer to their particular social group. It holds no political or public policy significance.

Myths are things that can neither be observed nor tested. This makes them distinct from legitimate science which holds that science is not a way to achieve "truth" but only as an ethic that holds that all knowledge as to the behavior of nature is both provisional and non-authoritarian.

Note how the latter deviates from the CAGW myth which holds that it is both "settled" and established as truth by a politically structured authoritarian body.

Now toddle off and sin no more.

 

[prometeus]

That's just simply not true:



https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assault-rifles-ban-ar-15-weapon-of-war/



https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

Yet there IS a critical difference between the AR and the M16 which renders them as two entirely different guns that look alike. That difference is in the description you provided. "weapon that could either shoot one bullet at a time or many rounds with one sustained squeeze of the trigger." ARs are not taken into battle.

 

[danielpalos]

Even Ten religious Commandments from a God, are not enough reason for some Persons.

Why manufacture and create, "legal inflation", when we really should simply, muster the militia until the crime rate goes down.

let's start with gun lovers, first.

Junk bonds not junk laws!

 

[MSgt]

If you believe this about conservatives (believe me, I'm not one), you may be dumber than the conservatives you portray.

Or simple aware of the reality I live in and just how dumb the conservative base has become. Here, allow me to help you into that world...

Of the world's countries, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States. Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.

Oh, and since the role of Fox News for eight years was to undermine anything Obama or Liberal, the Global Warming hoax was beat to death and Gore was dismissed as a hack for its viewers. I guess pretending that this has escaped you helps you cope with the base you belong to. But since you do not believe in this conspiracy crap, you may want to start acknowledging that your base has betrayed you. It doesn't deserve your defense.

As for good 'ole Noah...

Christian conservatives win, children lose: Texas textbooks will teach public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses.

On Friday the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted along party lines 10-5 to approve the biased and inaccurate textbooks. The vote signals a victory for Christian conservatives in Texas, and a disappointing defeat for historical accuracy and the education of innocent children.

Was Moses a Founding Father? A broken process at the Texas State Board of Education has allowed right-wing activists to politicize the facts—or fiction—that get taught in history class.

You think Liberals would do some idiotic crap like this? No, this is entirely a conservative sort of thing. The same sort of idiotic thing that would have conservative Senators voting on whether or not tomato paste is a vegetable just to oppose Obama's health agenda for school lunches.

So there we have it. You should not hide fro this reality. You may start to look as dumb as the other conservatives who exist.