US firefighters shot dead at blaze

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by TFatseas

He was a convicted felon, who is not allowed to possess firearms, in a state that has an assault weapons ban.

Shows how well a AWB works don't it?


If anything, the question should be that why was that dirtbag let out of prison in the first place.

Originally Posted by GT182

It sure seems that more and more wackos are feeding off of previous wackos this year. I wish someone would make it stop.

Exactly why I think the answer is expanding access to mental health care. If the wackos weren't wackos, they wouldn't be shooting people.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If the wackos weren't wackos, they wouldn't be shooting people.

But what if a mentally healthy person gets dumped by their partner, gets angry, and has their pistol in an unlocked cupboard?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

But what if a mentally healthy person gets dumped by their partner, gets angry, and has their pistol in an unlocked cupboard?

A mentally healthy person would find a healthy outlet. Otherwise they're not mentally healthy. The pistol is irrelevant.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A mentally healthy person would find a healthy outlet. Otherwise they're not mentally healthy. The pistol is irrelevant.

Really? I've been beaten half to death by mentally healthy people. What if they had had access to firearms?

Although, when our hypothetical angry-healthy person is walking or driving to their ex's place, they probably would've calmed down.

Anyway, if the American people vote on wether or not to change the second amendment, the people's choice should determine it, not the government's.

[Stealhead]

It does not work out that way that would be mob rule everyone voting on an amendment they do it in some states and it is a joke of the highest proportions.Even if they did do that
gun rights would win I would say that there are more pro gun rights than anti gun rights people in the US and a good number that simply would refuse to see any amendment tampered with that would vote in support of gun rights.


The person that "beat you half to death" did not kill you did they? If their intent was to do so they would have and by you own experience you prove that a person can cause great harm with their bare hands so why not require that all hands be cut off? Also what in the hell are you doing to be 13 years old and get beaten half to death by more than one person? You need to either stop socializing where you do that winds up in your getting a beat down or you need to learn some self defense.

A person doing something in anger or as a criminal act (knowing what they are doing) is not the same thing as a mentally ill person.Stop coming up with ideas of how someone might go nuts you sound as though you live in fear to me.

A guy wanting to kill his ex will likely do it if he commits to a plan the drive time will only give him more resolve or have no effect on him many people have driven to and away from murders.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Really? I've been beaten half to death by mentally healthy people. What if they had had access to firearms?

If they beat you half to death, they weren't mentally healthy.

Although, when our hypothetical angry-healthy person is walking or driving to their ex's place, they probably would've calmed down.

Using hypotheticals to support an argument only makes you look like you don't have any real arguments.

Anyway, if the American people vote on wether or not to change the second amendment, the people's choice should determine it, not the government's.

And again, you speak out on things you know less than nothing about. The Constition was specifically written so no one, neither government nor people, can change it on a whim. Any such change requires a majority vote in both houses of Congress, then ratification by 2/3 of the States.

The Constitution itself took months of debate to put into place, and many more months of arguments to convince the States to accept it. The New York ratification arguments for the Constitution were published in a paper called The Federalist, and are today contained in a volume known as The Federalist Papers. The arguments against were published in a variety of papers, and those that have survived are collected in a book called The Anti-Federalist Papers. If you haven't read and carefully studied both, you have no idea of what our Constitution means, and are in no position to say what should determine anything.

There were originally twelve amendments to the Constitution. Only ten of them were passed by Congress. Since 1791, when the first ten were ratified, seventeen more have been added. More than one hundred new amendments are proposed in Congress every year. Thirty three have passed Congress, including the twenty-seven existing Amendments. There are six more that have passed Congress but never been ratified by enough States to become law. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment, passed in 1992, was actually one of the original twelve, which means it took 202 years to come into effect.

No, the people don't vote on Constitutional Amendments. It is put into the hands of our elected representatives to start the wheels in motion, and it is the elected legislatures of the States who are tasked with making it binding law.

[Stealhead]

You can read them here


Federalist
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/ri...list_Index.htm

Anti-Federalist
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/ri...st/antifed.htm

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Using hypotheticals to support an argument only makes you look like you don't have any real arguments.

Wait, I thought you liked the 2nd Amendment! It really isn't good form to destroy someone's argument their argument is that your argument would mostly work!

And I'm not sure if you noticed, but I said if the American people vote on it. Then I voiced my opinion that wether or not a law is passed should be determined by the people.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

You can read them here


Federalist
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/ri...list_Index.htm

Anti-Federalist
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/ri...st/antifed.htm

Thanks

He was a convicted felon, who is not allowed to possess firearms, in a state that has an assault weapons ban.

It shall not be infringed.
If it shall not be infringed it shall not be infringed.
Do convicted felons no longer have freedom of reigion freedom of speech freedom of assembly, are they still allowed trial by jury can they have soldiers forced on them as lodgers do they lose the right to due process or become subject to cruel and unusual punishments?

It appears you want to infringe on peoples rights regarding the second amendment while trying to trumpet the second amendment as a holy script

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Wait, I thought you liked the 2nd Amendment! It really isn't good form to destroy someone's argument their argument is that your argument would mostly work!

When you try to make a point by making up imaginary situations, it deserves to be demeaned, if not ignored.

And I'm not sure if you noticed, but I said if the American people vote on it. Then I voiced my opinion that wether or not a law is passed should be determined by the people.

And I tried to point out to you that no law is ever voted on by the populace. We elect a government to do that job for us, and we stay out of their way unless they start breaking pre-existing law, and then the courts step in. That's the way it works.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It shall not be infringed.
If it shall not be infringed it shall not be infringed.
Do convicted felons no longer have freedom of reigion freedom of speech freedom of assembly, are they still allowed trial by jury can they have soldiers forced on them as lodgers do they lose the right to due process or become subject to cruel and unusual punishments?

It appears you want to infringe on peoples rights regarding the second amendment while trying to trumpet the second amendment as a holy script

Nice way to change the subject completely, while ignoring the point of the person you're addressing. His point was that this guy got the guns in spite of all the existing restrictions, and while I agree that his post was a subject change itself, you ignored him completely so you could make your own little tirade.

As for firearms ownership by felons, Federal law considers that a convicted felon forfeits all rights, including the right to vote. I personally disagree with that, but that's another story. State law supercedes Federal law where the crime was tried by the State. Louisiana State law allows felons who have served their time, "Paid their debt to society" to have all rights restored.

I find it interesting how you bring up different angles, not so you can discuss the subject, but just so you can needle certain people.

And I see you've conveniently "forgotten" how to use that button again.

I find it interesting how you bring up different angles, not so you can discuss the subject, but just so you can needle certain people.

I think you are guessing wrong, in fact I know you are wrong on that count which is unusual since that is an absolute.

But hey if you want to discuss the points then please go ahead and try a proper response to the post you quoted
so take this......

As for firearms ownership by felons, Federal law considers that a convicted felon forfeits all rights, including the right to vote.

...and equate it to all those rights I put down for discussion, noting of course that you used the magic word "all" which of course must by its nature include all those listed I took from the bill of rights as well as all other rights from the associated documents of which the 2nd amendment is only a small part.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I think you are guessing wrong, in fact I know you are wrong on that count which is unusual since that is an absolute.

Then maybe you should stop doing that altogether. It puts you in the same category as the boy who cried "Wolf!"

But hey if you want to discuss the points then please go ahead and try a proper response to the post you quoted
so take this......

I would probably put it down to an unnecessary knee-jerk response. On the other hand he did have a point of sorts, which you did choose to ignore.

On the other hand I can't say for sure because once again you expect me to go look for myself, because you can't be bothered with proper forum procedures. You can't be that lazy, since using the quote button is easier than the way you do it, so I have to assume that you do it on purpose, which is tantamount to trolling.

...and equate it to all those rights I put down for discussion, noting of course that you used the magic word "all" which of course must by its nature include all those listed I took from the bill of rights as well as all other rights from the associated documents of which the 2nd amendment is only a small part.

Since you didn't address the post you challenged, but rather side-stepped it, in this case you deserve no discussion.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

When you try to make a point by making up imaginary situations, it deserves to be demeaned, if not ignored.

I was actually showing some support for the 2nd Amendment: In other words, supporting your argument!