Twitter flips the script—victims to Trump

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

No, you still don't get it. They're every f'n bit as soulless and shit hearted. You said it yourself, "They put politics first."

So, they had every opportunity to make sweeping changes but, put their paychecks above children's lives.

Libs have no moral high ground here. You're told you do. You're just gullible enough to believe the bullshit.

So that gives the GOP-controlled White House, House and Senate reason not to? They had all three during Dubya too, and they let the assault weapons ban expire and did nothing to maintain any provisions, like a 10 round magazine limit.

Maybe you’re just gullible enough to believe the GOP and the NRA aren’t joined at the hip.

 

[Bitter Creek]

I’m just reading the 2nd Amendment.

You would be okay with taxing your free speech on a per letter basis?

 

[CowboyUp]

No, the 2nd Amendment does not require a well regulated militia. That isn't the operative clause. It would help you to read the words of our Founders regarding what the 2nd Amendment was for. A big hint, it was written in response to the Constitutional provision to have a standing army.

The second and third words of the 2nd Amendment to US Constitution are “well” and “regulated.”
It addresses nothing about what those regulations should be.
Regulations, afforded such prominence by the Founding Fathers, must have been deemed very important to the peoples’ right to bear arms. Has the NRA ever agreed to even one regulation?

 

[CowboyUp]

You would be okay with taxing your free speech on a per letter basis?

Can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. I have no problem with that restriction to my free speech.

 

[Alpha Poke]

So that gives the GOP-controlled White House, House and Senate reason not to? They had all three during Dubya too, and they let the assault weapons ban expire and did nothing to maintain any provisions, like a 10 round magazine limit.

Maybe you’re just gullible enough to believe the GOP and the NRA aren’t joined at the hip.

No, you have shit retention and comprehension.

I don't think any f'n party has yours or my best interest at heart. Read that sentence until it sticks.

Do you really think there are differences, or do both just tell you exactly what you want to hear? Weird, that we've been debating the same problems for so long to you?

 

[CowboyJD]

A little bit of reading to unpack before my commentary.

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right

Scalia in D.C. v. Heller.

That all comes from a decision written by a SCOTUS Justice largely considered by commentators as having a broadly expansive view of 2nd Amendment individual rights. Good old GL (he hasn’t been around recently...I kind of miss the guy and wonder why he hasn’t been visiting lately) used to just say Scalia was wrong....but this is the state of 2nd Amendment law we face until it is overturned.

Furthermore, even under this present state of law, It looks like to me that banning of large magazines and the commercial sale of certain firearms would be completely constitutional. Longer waiting periods before purchase and more extensive, detailed backgrounds and qualifications would likely be constitutional as well. It also seems to me that restrictions on public open carry away from home (and certainly conceal carry licenses) without some kind of permit might be constitutionally permitted.

It seems to me that that is a lot of room/wiggle space for discussions about possible changes to our gun laws...the dreaded “gun control”....that the extremes of pro and negative gun possession folks really do not want to engage in for some reason.

Just my opinion.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

No, you have shit retention and comprehension.

I don't think any f'n party has yours or my best interest at heart. Read that sentence until it sticks.

Do you really think there are differences, or do both just tell you exactly what you want to hear? Weird, that we've been debating the same problems for so long to you?

Obama era rule banned guns from more mentally ill people. What did Trump do? Tear it up and throw it in the trash. Democrats are not the angels on our shoulders they claim to be, but they’ve certainly tried harder than Republicans in regards to gun regulation, there’s just no doubt about that. The 94 weapons ban had a clear grandfather clause, which was obviously pressure from the right and a true compromise of the effectiveness of the bill. A buyback would certainly be expensive and largely ineffective making s dent on the black market.

The gun show loophole is an issue that also needs attention, and Oklahomans should know the inherent risk there, with only the world’s largest gun show annually.

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

You understand the outrage when Trump used this very rhetoric on Twitter is the central issue here, no? Those are registered voters in 2020, assuming he makes it to 2020 lol.

And I’m curious of proof of central role of dossier in “fraudulent” FISA warrants? Waiting patiently here...


Carry on.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

No, you still don't get it. They're every f'n bit as soulless and shit hearted. You said it yourself, "They put politics first."

So, they had every opportunity to make sweeping changes but, put their paychecks above children's lives.

Libs have no moral high ground here. You're told you do. You're just gullible enough to believe the bullshit.

Typical bitch take. Apparently if the congressional dems would have obstructed, lied, and taken NRA $$ it would spare them your wrath. You lift the hide on them for doing nothing but total silence for the party that works their ass off to maintain the status quo.

Hopefully they'll try again (like they have many times) and your comrades won't be there to obstruct them. If it was up to me the dems would lose their shit until tangible results are obtained.

Out of curiosity what's your take on Biff rescinding the social security reg on gun ownership? Damned democrats, right?

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

No...it doesn’t. Can experienced shooters change mags fast? Yes, but you use hyperbole to your wits end.

i really don't use much if any hyperbole.

let's take your statement, assume it's true that i am wrong and let me ask you this - how long do you think it takes to change a typical magazine in an average magazine fed rifle?

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

i really don't use much if any hyperbole.

let's take your statement, assume it's true that i am wrong and let me ask you this - how long do you think it takes to change a typical magazine in an average magazine fed rifle?

A couple seconds if you’re really quick.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Language warning NSFW...

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[Medic007]

The second and third words of the 2nd Amendment to US Constitution are “well” and “regulated.”
It addresses nothing about what those regulations should be.

"Well regulated" during the time period written clearly refers to "well trained/disciplined," not regulation as in modern regulatory burden. Militia referred to the whole of the people excluding the federal government.

Real easy to look this stuff up if you want to.

Regulations, afforded such prominence by the Founding Fathers, must have been deemed very important to the peoples’ right to bear arms.

Again, the first clause is not the operative clause. The writings of the Founders regarding the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is well documented, just as it is for the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written to protect freedoms, not grant them. It was not written to grant the federal government additional power, it was to limit it.

Has the NRA ever agreed to even one regulation?

Yep. Don't be obtuse.

Question for you...

If you believe the 2nd Amendment granted the right to keep and bear arms, did the 1st Amendment grant the right to free speech, assembly, and religion too? Did the 4th Amendment grant the right against unreasonable search and seizure? Did the 5th Amendment grant the right to not self incriminate?

If your answer to any of the above is yes, then the government has the ability to take any and all away at their discretion because that granting of rights means the government is not limited in their action.

If you answer no to all of the above (which you will), then you agree those amendments guaranteed an existing right against government infringement. If that's the case, and we know it is, why would the Founders slip a single amendment into the Bill of Rights that gave the federal government power? They didn't, and that's reflected in the easy to find historical records.

 

[CowboyUp]

"Well regulated" during the time period written clearly refers to "well trained/disciplined," not regulation as in modern regulatory burden. Militia referred to the whole of the people excluding the federal government.

Real easy to look this stuff up if you want to.


Again, the first clause is not the operative clause. The writings of the Founders regarding the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is well documented, just as it is for the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written to protect freedoms, not grant them. It was not written to grant the federal government additional power, it was to limit it.


Yep. Don't be obtuse.

Question for you...

If you believe the 2nd Amendment granted the right to keep and bear arms, did the 1st Amendment grant the right to free speech, assembly, and religion too? Did the 4th Amendment grant the right against unreasonable search and seizure? Did the 5th Amendment grant the right to not self incriminate?

If your answer to any of the above is yes, then the government has the ability to take any and all away at their discretion because that granting of rights means the government is not limited in their action.

If you answer no to all of the above (which you will), then you agree those amendments guaranteed an existing right against government infringement. If that's the case, and we know it is, why would the Founders slip a single amendment into the Bill of Rights that gave the federal government power? They didn't, and that's reflected in the easy to find historical records.

Read into it anything you want. We all have that right too.

I’ll stick with the original wording of the 2nd Amendment—“A well regulated militia...”

“A well regulated militia” does not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

Evidently the Fathers considered a “well regulated” militia ESSENTIAL to the security of a free state.

 

[Medic007]

Read into it anything you want. We all have that right too.

I’ll stick with the original wording of the 2nd Amendment—“A well regulated militia...”

“A well regulated militia” does not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

Evidently the Fathers considered a “well regulated” militia ESSENTIAL to the security of a free state.

Exactly, Cup.

Me owning firearms and being well trained in their use is ESSENTIAL to the security of a free State, since I am the militia the 2nd refers to.

Our Founders were very smart people who despised the type of rule they risked their lives to gain independence from. It was brilliant to enshrine the freedoms they sacrificed for in the founding document of our Republic.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

A couple seconds if you’re really quick.

ok, then does that fundamentally change my point? a couple seconds is highly unlikely to be an important factor when help is 10 minutes away.

 

[CowboyUp]

ok, then does that fundamentally change my point? a couple seconds is highly unlikely to be an important factor when help is 10 minutes away.

a couple seconds saved lives at Gifford shooting.
Middle age woman got her hand betweeen hammer and pin while he attempted to reload.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Typical bitch take. Apparently if the congressional dems would have obstructed, lied, and taken NRA $$ it would spare them your wrath. You lift the hide on them for doing nothing but total silence for the party that works their ass off to maintain the status quo.

Hopefully they'll try again (like they have many times) and your comrades won't be there to obstruct them. If it was up to me the dems would lose their shit until tangible results are obtained.

Out of curiosity what's your take on Biff rescinding the social security reg on gun ownership? Damned democrats, right?

You're a retard.

Your solution, keep doing the same shit. Not, let's step out of the loop and see what's going on. Nope, just keep bitching. full f'n wail. like, you can really feel it deep in your ovaries. About the same f'n shit. Daily.
You're like tube of toothpaste. Every squeeze, you get the same shit.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

You're a retard.

Your solution, keep doing the same shit. Not, let's step out of the loop and see what's going on. Nope, just keep bitching. full f'n wail. like, you can really feel it deep in your ovaries. About the same f'n shit. Daily.
You're like tube of toothpaste. Every squeeze, you get the same shit.

What do you propose?

 

[Alpha Poke]

Instead of having the same inane conversation for years, thinking about why we keep having the same f'n conversation. Who's perpetuating the friction?

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Who's perpetuating the friction?

The last 2 Democrat administrations have put more regulations in place. The last 2 Republican administrations have either taken them off or let them expire. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

Republicans have always backpedaled in the face of NRA pressure, that’s just a fact.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

You're a retard.

Your solution, keep doing the same shit. Not, let's step out of the loop and see what's going on. Nope, just keep bitching. full f'n wail. like, you can really feel it deep in your ovaries. About the same f'n shit. Daily.
You're like tube of toothpaste. Every squeeze, you get the same shit.

Keep doing the same shit is exactly the opposite of what I want. That is factually inaccurate.

What do you propose?

Bitch at the only people that want something done and claim the high ground - and un the meanwhile apparently be okay with obstructing any attempted reform. That's the chickenshit option, so watch and see. What am I saying? He already lapped that on the chickenshit spectrum: he blames the dems from 7 years ago. Nada about the party every since that obstructed Obama's every attempt.

Well done Alf -- you're the charter member of the chickenshit hall of fame.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Instead of having the same inane conversation for years, thinking about why we keep having the same f'n conversation. Who's perpetuating the friction?

NRA and the people dumb enough to accept their messaging. Groundhog Day.

 

[CowboyJD]

1. Increased funding for mental health care.

2. Better more extensive background checks...will cost money. Will also likely necessitate a longer waiting period.

3. Maybe change the Brady Act on mental health from adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to something like:

“Currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder. For purposes of this paragraph, "currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder" means the person has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as being afflicted with a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, psychological orientation, or memory that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life“ as a disqualifier.

Maybe even an “in the past X number of years” time period.

4. Either a monetary stick (decrease of funding to states under Omnibus Crime Act funding) or carrot (increased funding under same) for reaching benchmark arrest/conviction information and mental health record reporting to NICS by the states.

5. Increased funding for school security measures....seems like a nice infrastructure program I could get behind.

Would all be on the table for me. This has become a public safety/public health issue as important as the opiates crisis to me. I don’t know if either side has the political will to actually dedicate real resources to improving the crisis.

Things that I’m not particularly interested in pursuing:

1. Arming teachers or authorizing carry in the classroom by teachers.
2. Particular weapon bans for certain semi-automatics. I understand the attraction to and fear of scary looking “assault rifles”, but functionally they are no different than other semi-auto rifles and semi-auto handguns. Discussion of banning things like bump stocks or cranks would be worthy of discussion.

Thing that I’m on the fence on:

1. Required training and qualification licensing for general public carry (with particular policy based exceptions including, but not necessarily limited, to possession on property owned by the possessor and possibly others.

P.S. not cut and pasted from anywhere else. I feel like a nine year old defending that I did this “all by myself”...but I did.

We all need to agree that no regulation is going to eliminate the problem, but the focus should be on decreasing the carnage.

Just my opinion....Fire/criticize away. Call me a snowflake lib...statist...Nazi...whatever. I’m thick skinned (relatively).

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

a couple seconds saved lives at Gifford shooting.
Middle age woman got her hand betweeen hammer and pin while he attempted to reload.

ok so one anecdotal story. not typically a strong foundation for changing laws.

 

[Medic007]

Great post JD. Actually exceptional and thank you for taking the time. My thoughts on your thoughts...

1. Increased funding for mental health care.

AGREE

2. Better more extensive background checks...will cost money. Will also likely necessitate a longer waiting period.

AGREE with inclusion of aggressive prosecution of those who are not legally able to buy when they try. Deterrent, plus knowing they'll likely still be shopping, it takes them off the streets and gun buying money out of their pockets.

3. Maybe change the Brady Act on mental health from adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to something like:

“Currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder. For purposes of this paragraph, "currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder" means the person has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as being afflicted with a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, psychological orientation, or memory that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life“ as a disqualifier.

Maybe even an “in the past X number of years” time period.

AGREE. I think Trump should have moved to modify what Obama put in place, not abandon it.

4. Either a monetary stick (decrease of funding to states under Omnibus Crime Act funding) or carrot (increased funding under same) for reaching benchmark arrest/conviction information and mental health record reporting to NICS by the states.

Have both. Penalty for not meeting benchmark and increased funding for exceeding it. Move toward more severe cuts for not meeting the benchmark when an expectation of nearly flawless can be expected.

5. Increased funding for school security measures....seems like a nice infrastructure program I could get behind.

AGREE. Divert the bloat from the recent increases in defense spending. This investment needs to be substantial and sustainable. The DOD can learn how to manage money better and eliminate waste to make up for the "loss."

Would all be on the table for me. This has become a public safety/public health issue as important as the opiates crisis to me. I don’t know if either side has the political will to actually dedicate real resources to improving the crisis.

AGREED

1. Arming teachers or authorizing carry in the classroom by teachers

I'm on the fence. I don't believe it should be mandatory, but having capable and competent adults armed is another layer. Maybe folks with conceal carry plus additional training.

2. Particular weapon bans for certain semi-automatics. I understand the attraction to and fear of scary looking “assault rifles”, but functionally they are no different than other semi-auto rifles and semi-auto handguns. Discussion of banning things like bump stocks or cranks would be worthy of discussion.

Bump stocks and cranks should never have been approved. Simulation of automatic fire should be treated as automatic fire and not as a glaring loophole. I don't think bans on semi automatic weapons will accomplish much outside of full confiscation because there are a bunch of them out there.

I do think that large capacity magazines could and likely should be regulated like short barrel weapons and supressors. Make them Class 3 and those that want them can go through the excessive hoops and added expense if they are that important to own.

1. Required training and qualification licensing for general public carry (with particular policy based exceptions including, but not necessarily limited, to possession on property owned by the possessor and possibly others.

AGREED. I wouldn't be opposed to see the country move in this direction for gun ownership in general.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Keep doing the same shit is exactly the opposite of what I want. That is factually inaccurate.



Bitch at the only people that want something done and claim the high ground - and un the meanwhile apparently be okay with obstructing any attempted reform. That's the chickenshit option, so watch and see. What am I saying? He already lapped that on the chickenshit spectrum: he blames the dems from 7 years ago. Nada about the party every since that obstructed Obama's every attempt.

Well done Alf -- you're the charter member of the chickenshit hall of fame.

You're a special kind of stupid.

You produce conclusions based on nothing I've said.

I get it, you arent equiped to abandon the herd. You probably enjoy the view.

 

[poke2001]

1. Increased funding for mental health care.

2. Better more extensive background checks...will cost money. Will also likely necessitate a longer waiting period.

3. Maybe change the Brady Act on mental health from adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to something like:

“Currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder. For purposes of this paragraph, "currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder" means the person has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as being afflicted with a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, psychological orientation, or memory that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life“ as a disqualifier.

Maybe even an “in the past X number of years” time period.

4. Either a monetary stick (decrease of funding to states under Omnibus Crime Act funding) or carrot (increased funding under same) for reaching benchmark arrest/conviction information and mental health record reporting to NICS by the states.

5. Increased funding for school security measures....seems like a nice infrastructure program I could get behind.

Would all be on the table for me. This has become a public safety/public health issue as important as the opiates crisis to me. I don’t know if either side has the political will to actually dedicate real resources to improving the crisis.

Things that I’m not particularly interested in pursuing:

1. Arming teachers or authorizing carry in the classroom by teachers.
2. Particular weapon bans for certain semi-automatics. I understand the attraction to and fear of scary looking “assault rifles”, but functionally they are no different than other semi-auto rifles and semi-auto handguns. Discussion of banning things like bump stocks or cranks would be worthy of discussion.

Thing that I’m on the fence on:

1. Required training and qualification licensing for general public carry (with particular policy based exceptions including, but not necessarily limited, to possession on property owned by the possessor and possibly others.

P.S. not cut and pasted from anywhere else. I feel like a nine year old defending that I did this “all by myself”...but I did.

We all need to agree that no regulation is going to eliminate the problem, but the focus should be on decreasing the carnage.

Just my opinion....Fire/criticize away. Call me a snowflake lib...statist...Nazi...whatever. I’m thick skinned (relatively).

I can support this, but need the mental health portion to very extremely clear in legislation and not left up to idiots’ opinions. I’ve said before, my wife was prescribed medication for postpartum depreciation. That shouldn’t put her on a list to not allow purchase of firearms. There are other examples similar. Saying “crazy people” shouldn’t own guns is an easy statement. Defining it is difficult.

 

[davidallen]

Instead of having the same inane conversation for years, thinking about why we keep having the same f'n conversation. Who's perpetuating the friction?

Deflection... Worked well up to now, why not try again?

These are orthogonal questions, your unwillingness to address both is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Medic007]

I’ve said before, my wife was prescribed medication for postpartum depreciation.

How much value did she lose and did you take the write off up front or over 3 years?

I kid.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

You're a special kind of stupid.

You produce conclusions based on nothing I've said.

To your credit, you haven't said much beyond blaming democrats because they didn't act 7 years ago. I stand corrected and that's a great contribution to the dialogue. Very thoughtful point. Timely, too. Really puts the blame where it belongs.

 

[GoPokes43]

"well regulated" does not mean "subject to regulations". It means well practiced or in working order. https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-t...d’-and-‘militia’-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

 

[Alpha Poke]

To your credit, you haven't said much beyond blaming democrats because they didn't act 7 years ago. I stand corrected and that's a great contribution to the dialogue. Very thoughtful point. Timely, too. Really puts the blame where it belongs.

It did if you read what I wrote. I know my style probably taxes your attention span, but I plainly stated that the system is set up to perpetuate this bullshit. Neither party has any intention of solving problems. There is no difference in the pols behind closed doors. You'll some how turn that into me being a mouthpiece for the R's because that doesn't fit into any argument that's been made for you.

Good boy.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Deflection... Worked well up to now, why not try again?

These are orthogonal questions, your unwillingness to address both is fundamentally dishonest.

Well, I had to look up orthogonal, maybe you should've.

Anyway, no, they're intertwined.

Worked up? It's just how I f'n talk. Cuss words help condense a conversation.

 

[davidallen]

Well, I had to look up orthogonal, maybe you should've.

Anyway, no, they're intertwined.

Worked up? It's just how I f'n talk. Cuss words help condense a conversation.

Glad I am helping to expand your vocabulary. Though doubt you really understand the meaning in this context.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Teach me, dipshit. I'm always willing to learn.

 

[Medic007]

What would this guy know about school shootings?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-pushes-to-end-gun-free-zones-in-schools.html

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]