Jump to content
TrumpBGoneSoon

A Serious Discussion about Gun Violence.

Recommended Posts

- Constitutional Liberty -

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

Florida Teachers Can ARM THEMSELVES Under New Gun Bill

 

Florida’s legislature on Wednesday passed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom,

expanding a program launched after the deadly high school shooting in Parkland with the aim of preventing another such massacre.

 

Screen-Shot-2016-07-10-at-Sunday-July-10

 

Ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

BD, I have you on ignore, but thank you for bumping my thread.  

 

Most Democrat National Socialist nut-jobs do.

 

Ha!

 

- Constitutional Liberty -

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

Florida Teachers Can ARM THEMSELVES Under New Gun Bill

 

Florida’s legislature on Wednesday passed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom,

expanding a program launched after the deadly high school shooting in Parkland with the aim of preventing another such massacre.

 

Parkland-students-Emma-Gonzalez-and-Davi

 

Ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

BD, I have you on ignore, but thank you for bumping my thread.  

 

So, having a serious discussion about gun violence... without you, Comrade.

(ask your mommy if you can participate)

 

Ha!

 

- Constitutional Liberty -

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

Florida Teachers Can ARM THEMSELVES Under New Gun Bill

 

Florida’s legislature on Wednesday passed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom,

expanding a program launched after the deadly high school shooting in Parkland with the aim of preventing another such massacre.

 

5aab2793567492e2d6984348f4a1ffc8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Constitutional Liberty -

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

Florida Teachers Can ARM THEMSELVES Under New Gun Bill

 

Florida’s legislature on Wednesday passed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom,

expanding a program launched after the deadly high school shooting in Parkland with the aim of preventing another such massacre.

 

give-me-liberty-molonlabe-2ndamendment-f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Constitutional Liberty -

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

Florida Teachers Can ARM THEMSELVES Under New Gun Bill

 

Florida’s legislature on Wednesday passed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom,

expanding a program launched after the deadly high school shooting in Parkland with the aim of preventing another such massacre.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 10:31 AM, Blue Devil said:

Parkland-students-Emma-Gonzalez-and-Davi

 

 

 

A year ago the  libs said this douche on the  right would become some big leader.        Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case there is any chance of a REAL serious discussion I think an important point is that NOBODY thinks you have a right to a tactical nuclear weapon or to have a gun in someone else's home or when you meet the president.  So we should stop talking in absolutes and agree that the only real argument we are having about gun control is where we draw the lines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- The Imbecilic "tactical nuclear weapon" Argument -

 

Treason Monkey Says:

15 hours ago, Debs said:

 

giphy.gif

In case there is any chance of a REAL serious discussion I think an important point is that NOBODY thinks you have a right to a tactical nuclear weapon or to have a gun in someone else's home or when you meet the president.  So we should stop talking in absolutes and agree that the only real argument we are having about gun control is where we draw the lines

 

- Constitutional Liberty -

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

 

6db51c182a8791cf663c24c4eb7c3651--quill-

 

Screen-Shot-2016-07-10-at-Sunday-July-10

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 7:24 PM, Debs said:

In case there is any chance of a REAL serious discussion I think an important point is that NOBODY thinks you have a right to a tactical nuclear weapon or to have a gun in someone else's home or when you meet the president.  So we should stop talking in absolutes and agree that the only real argument we are having about gun control is where we draw the lines

I tried but it was run over by folks who didn't respect my wishes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 5:58 PM, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

It isn't.  But the words "WELL REGULATED" and "Militia" are.  

 and do you know what the words regulated in militia mean according to the drafters of the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Giujo said:

 and do you know what the words regulated in militia mean according to the drafters of the Constitution?

It has lost context over the years since we have a military that is fully trained and not made of farmers and smiths.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

It has lost context over the years since we have a military that is fully trained and not made of farmers and smiths.  

And there in lies the trouble...you do not have a clear understanding of the intent of the framers of the Constitution. I take it you're trying to define the word militia. The Second Amendment does not address a standing army. In actuality the Second Amendment is an opposition to the standing army. I also noticed that you did not attempt to define the word well regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 When you understand the intent of the framers of the Constitution specifically in reference to the Second Amendment then and only then are you able to have an intelligent discussion about restrictions to what is an individual right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Giujo said:

And there in lies the trouble...you do not have a clear understanding of the intent of the framers of the Constitution. I take it you're trying to define the word militia. The Second Amendment does not address a standing army. In actuality the Second Amendment is an opposition to the standing army. I also noticed that you did not attempt to define the word well regulated.

That's another boondoggle.   What they considered well regulated would not mean anything today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Giujo said:

 When you understand the intent of the framers of the Constitution specifically in reference to the Second Amendment then and only then are you able to have an intelligent discussion about restrictions to what is an individual right

Sorry, But all Amendments are up for interpretation.   Our founding fathers had no concept of guns that were easily purchased that could shoot farther and repeatedly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your edification the Second Amendment like the other nine amendments is an individual right. there was only one reason for the Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution and that was the concern that the framers had to enumerate certain individual rights and to have those rights safeguarded. People who assert that the Second Amendment is a right guaranteed to the government or a standing army ignores the fact that the framers feared most of all central government and a standing army in concert and would never have included a right guaranteed to the government in a catalog of individual rights. It is clear from the writings of the framers of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers Etc that the Second Amendment is an individual right of self-protection for ones person. Additionally it allows the individual to come together with other individuals if necessary to defend their community their state or their Nation as needed against all tyranny both foreign and domestic. in the days of the framers of the Constitution  there were no police departments so each individual was responsible for his own personal protection and that of his neighbor. and although I'm sure you will point out that we now have police departments there is a Supreme Court decision that says the police department is not responsible for the safety of the individual but for the community as a whole. It therefore leaves ones personal protection to the individual. And as for the word militia it has nothing to do with a standing army the militia is comprised of the individual citizen. as for the term regulated most people mistakenly believe it refers to a regulation or restriction and that is not the case. In the time of the framers well regulated meant as in regulation issue... The framers intent was that the citizen the armed on par with any other standing army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Sorry, But all Amendments are up for interpretation.   Our founding fathers had no concept of guns that were easily purchased that could shoot farther and repeatedly.  

And therein lies your other problem... you don't get to interpret my individual rights. And I would argue that the framers of the Constitution had a unique insight and foresight especially when it came to the Second Amendment. You see in their day the long musket was considered an assault weapon... That term was actually used back then and Firearms were more readily available then you might imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Giujo said:

For your edification the Second Amendment like the other nine amendments is an individual right. there was only one reason for the Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution and that was the concern that the framers had to enumerate certain individual rights and to have those rights safeguarded. People who assert that the Second Amendment is a right guaranteed to the government or a standing army ignores the fact that the framers feared most of all central government and a standing army in concert and would never have included all right guaranteed to the government in a catalog of individual rights. It is clear from the writings of the framers of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers Etc that the Second Amendment is an individual right of self-protection for once person. Additionally it allows the individual to come together with other individuals if necessary to defend stick community their state or their Nation as needed against all tyranny both foreign and domestic. in the days of the framers of the Constitution is there were no police departments so each individual was responsible for his own personal protection and that of his neighbor. and although I'm sure you will point out that we now have police departments there is a Supreme Court decision that says the police department is not responsible for the safety of the individual but for the community as a whole. It therefore leaves once personal protection to the individual. And as for the word militia it has nothing to do with a standing army the militia is comprised of the individual citizen. as for the term regulated most people mistakenly believe it refers to a regulation or restriction and that is not the case. In the time of the framers well regulated meant as in regulation issue... The framers intent was that the citizen the armed on par with any other standing army.

This I can't dispute but I can say that would argue that having guns that can shoot up a rock concert from several feet away is it's own brand of tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Giujo said:

And therein lies your other problem... you don't get to interpret my individual rights. And I would argue that the framers of the Constitution had a unique insight and foresight especially when it came to the Second Amendment. You see in their day the long musket was considered an assault weapon... That term was actually used back then and Firearms were more readily available then you might imagine.

You're right, I don't and never will. But this compliancy is getting a lot people killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

You're right, I don't and never will. But this compliancy is getting a lot people killed.

I assume you meant the word complacency... And I assure you there's nothing complacent when it comes to an individual unalienable right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...