Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Polls
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Polls Discuss where does the blame lie for the recent shootings? at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Manitou With all due respect, put a cork in it, sir. You don't get to tell me ...

View Poll Results: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?
the president 0 0%
the gun 0 0%
lack of mental health coverage 2 12.50%
friends and family of shooter 0 0%
the shooter 14 87.50%
Voters: 16. This poll is closed

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:36 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,315 Times in 1,841 Posts
Default Re: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
With all due respect, put a cork in it, sir. You don't get to tell me how to defend myself and loved ones around me. Your story about you being a combat veteran seems now to me to be a matter of opinion, every time you post something stupid here.

Go after the bad guys, and stop infringing on the rights of law-abiding people. Go to some bad section of neighborhood and blather all you want to the "gang bangers" there, the drug dealers, et cetera.
No one is advocating that you don't have a Constitutional Right under the Second Amendment to defend yourself.

The Constitution also prohibits the confiscation of firearms currently owned by law abiding people.

In the Heller decision, written by Justice Scalia, a very pro-2nd Amendment justice, the plaintiffs successfully argued that, while firearms are not specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment, a handgun is the primary source of self-defense and that laws and/or regulations that pragmatically prevented the use of a handgun for self defense was a violation of the Second Amendment. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court agreed.

In that same Supreme Court decision Justice Scalia also acknowledged the authority of the government (federal, state, and local) to impose regulations and restrictions on firearms for the public safety so long as the laws and regulations didn't prevent a necessary lawful purpose. The government has the authority to regulate the types of firearms that can be sold to the public. The government can regulate the ownership of existing firearms. The government can regulate where and how the firearms are used. Once again so long as the government doesn't expressly prevent the lawful use of firearms for necessary lawful purposes the government has extensive powers to protect the public safety by regulating firearms.

If someone currently owns an AR-15 the government is not going to take it away from the person as long as they comply with the law.

The Heller decision reaffirmed the long standing precedent that, based upon protecting the public safety, the government has the Constitutional authority to prohibit the future manufacture and sales of AR-15's and other firearms that were designed for the specific military purpose of killing and maiming the maximum number of victims in the shortest possible period of time. These firearms were not specifically designed for any lawful public purpose and other firearms exist that were designed specifically for lawful purposes.

This laws do not violate the Second Amendment.

An interesting side note. The protection of firearms, that can be lethal, for self defense is only because we don't have another non-lethal weapon ("arms") that is as effective in stopping an act of aggression (i.e. self defense) when compared to a firearm. We do not have a "right to kill" another person even as an act of self defense. If the use of a firearm results in death then that death must be incidental to the act of self defense and not an intentional act (i.e. you cannot stand over a person that's been rendered incapable of continuing an act of aggression and intentionally empty the magazine with the express purpose of killing the former aggressor - that's murder).

Someday someone will invent the non-lethal Star Trek "stun gun" that instantly disables an attacker (or group of attackers) without it ever resulting in the death. When that day comes there will no longer be a basis for protecting a lethal firearm for the purpose of self defense under the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Don't worry though, The government won't take your firearms away from you even then. You might be prohibited from using firearms for self defense but the Constitution protects you from having them confiscated.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:38 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,941
Thanks: 1,819
Thanked 1,983 Times in 1,200 Posts
Default Re: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
No one is advocating that you don't have a Constitutional Right under the Second Amendment to defend yourself.

The Constitution also prohibits the confiscation of firearms currently owned by law abiding people.

In the Heller decision, written by Justice Scalia, a very pro-2nd Amendment justice, the plaintiffs successfully argued that, while firearms are not specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment, a handgun is the primary source of self-defense and that laws and/or regulations that pragmatically prevented the use of a handgun for self defense was a violation of the Second Amendment. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court agreed.

In that same Supreme Court decision Justice Scalia also acknowledged the authority of the government (federal, state, and local) to impose regulations and restrictions on firearms for the public safety so long as the laws and regulations didn't prevent a necessary lawful purpose. The government has the authority to regulate the types of firearms that can be sold to the public. The government can regulate the ownership of existing firearms. The government can regulate where and how the firearms are used. Once again so long as the government doesn't expressly prevent the lawful use of firearms for necessary lawful purposes the government has extensive powers to protect the public safety by regulating firearms.

If someone currently owns an AR-15 the government is not going to take it away from the person as long as they comply with the law.

The Heller decision reaffirmed the long standing precedent that, based upon protecting the public safety, the government has the Constitutional authority to prohibit the future manufacture and sales of AR-15's and other firearms that were designed for the specific military purpose of killing and maiming the maximum number of victims in the shortest possible period of time. These firearms were not specifically designed for any lawful public purpose and other firearms exist that were designed specifically for lawful purposes.

This laws do not violate the Second Amendment.

An interesting side note. The protection of firearms, that can be lethal, for self defense is only because we don't have another non-lethal weapon ("arms") that is as effective in stopping an act of aggression (i.e. self defense) when compared to a firearm. We do not have a "right to kill" another person even as an act of self defense. If the use of a firearm results in death then that death must be incidental to the act of self defense and not an intentional act (i.e. you cannot stand over a person that's been rendered incapable of continuing an act of aggression and intentionally empty the magazine with the express purpose of killing the former aggressor - that's murder).

Someday someone will invent the non-lethal Star Trek "stun gun" that instantly disables an attacker (or group of attackers) without it ever resulting in the death. When that day comes there will no longer be a basis for protecting a lethal firearm for the purpose of self defense under the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Don't worry though, The government won't take your firearms away from you even then. You might be prohibited from using firearms for self defense but the Constitution protects you from having them confiscated.
You are clueless about the 2nd amendment.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:51 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,078
Thanks: 677
Thanked 6,971 Times in 4,989 Posts
Default Re: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
No one is advocating that you don't have a Constitutional Right under the Second Amendment to defend yourself.

The Constitution also prohibits the confiscation of firearms currently owned by law abiding people.

In the Heller decision, written by Justice Scalia, a very pro-2nd Amendment justice, the plaintiffs successfully argued that, while firearms are not specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment, a handgun is the primary source of self-defense and that laws and/or regulations that pragmatically prevented the use of a handgun for self defense was a violation of the Second Amendment. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court agreed.

In that same Supreme Court decision Justice Scalia also acknowledged the authority of the government (federal, state, and local) to impose regulations and restrictions on firearms for the public safety so long as the laws and regulations didn't prevent a necessary lawful purpose. The government has the authority to regulate the types of firearms that can be sold to the public. The government can regulate the ownership of existing firearms. The government can regulate where and how the firearms are used. Once again so long as the government doesn't expressly prevent the lawful use of firearms for necessary lawful purposes the government has extensive powers to protect the public safety by regulating firearms.

If someone currently owns an AR-15 the government is not going to take it away from the person as long as they comply with the law.

The Heller decision reaffirmed the long standing precedent that, based upon protecting the public safety, the government has the Constitutional authority to prohibit the future manufacture and sales of AR-15's and other firearms that were designed for the specific military purpose of killing and maiming the maximum number of victims in the shortest possible period of time. These firearms were not specifically designed for any lawful public purpose and other firearms exist that were designed specifically for lawful purposes.

This laws do not violate the Second Amendment.

An interesting side note. The protection of firearms, that can be lethal, for self defense is only because we don't have another non-lethal weapon ("arms") that is as effective in stopping an act of aggression (i.e. self defense) when compared to a firearm. We do not have a "right to kill" another person even as an act of self defense. If the use of a firearm results in death then that death must be incidental to the act of self defense and not an intentional act (i.e. you cannot stand over a person that's been rendered incapable of continuing an act of aggression and intentionally empty the magazine with the express purpose of killing the former aggressor - that's murder).

Someday someone will invent the non-lethal Star Trek "stun gun" that instantly disables an attacker (or group of attackers) without it ever resulting in the death. When that day comes there will no longer be a basis for protecting a lethal firearm for the purpose of self defense under the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Don't worry though, The government won't take your firearms away from you even then. You might be prohibited from using firearms for self defense but the Constitution protects you from having them confiscated.
bold mine

Again, and with all due respect, I am not a gangbanger. Get yourself on down to some crime-infested neighborhood, and preach to the bad guys there about how bad it is to prey upon people, how "bad" firearms are, and tell them about those Star Trek toys you blathered about.

Also, take a look at your silly statement I bolded above. Those are not the thoughts of a "highly decorated combat veteran", but of a snowflake hiding under his bed.

In my house I have a wood carving that states, "Come in peace, or you will be carried out in pieces."

What kind of imbecile thinks a person will not use whatever means he has to protect his family?

Go move to Venezuela. I'll bet they will love you there.

Last edited by Manitou; 08-17-2019 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2019, 01:24 PM
Jaaaman's Avatar
Outing liberal stupidity
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: South Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 596
Thanks: 1,645
Thanked 398 Times in 259 Posts
Default Re: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
Go move to Venezuela. I'll bet they will love you there.
Or perhaps Cambodia when Pol Pot was in power.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jaaaman For This Useful Post:
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2019, 02:39 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,078
Thanks: 677
Thanked 6,971 Times in 4,989 Posts
Default Re: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaaaman View Post
Or perhaps Cambodia when Pol Pot was in power.
Some types of "combat veterans" get tingles up their legs imagining some psycho like Pol Pot disarming the people and putting themselves in charge of running things.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2019, 08:26 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,878
Thanks: 12,354
Thanked 13,338 Times in 7,772 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
No one is advocating that you don't have a Constitutional Right under the Second Amendment to defend yourself.

The Constitution also prohibits the confiscation of firearms currently owned by law abiding people.

In the Heller decision, written by Justice Scalia, a very pro-2nd Amendment justice, the plaintiffs successfully argued that, while firearms are not specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment, a handgun is the primary source of self-defense and that laws and/or regulations that pragmatically prevented the use of a handgun for self defense was a violation of the Second Amendment. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court agreed.

In that same Supreme Court decision Justice Scalia also acknowledged the authority of the government (federal, state, and local) to impose regulations and restrictions on firearms for the public safety so long as the laws and regulations didn't prevent a necessary lawful purpose. The government has the authority to regulate the types of firearms that can be sold to the public. The government can regulate the ownership of existing firearms. The government can regulate where and how the firearms are used. Once again so long as the government doesn't expressly prevent the lawful use of firearms for necessary lawful purposes the government has extensive powers to protect the public safety by regulating firearms.

If someone currently owns an AR-15 the government is not going to take it away from the person as long as they comply with the law.

The Heller decision reaffirmed the long standing precedent that, based upon protecting the public safety, the government has the Constitutional authority to prohibit the future manufacture and sales of AR-15's and other firearms that were designed for the specific military purpose of killing and maiming the maximum number of victims in the shortest possible period of time. These firearms were not specifically designed for any lawful public purpose and other firearms exist that were designed specifically for lawful purposes.

This laws do not violate the Second Amendment.

An interesting side note. The protection of firearms, that can be lethal, for self defense is only because we don't have another non-lethal weapon ("arms") that is as effective in stopping an act of aggression (i.e. self defense) when compared to a firearm. We do not have a "right to kill" another person even as an act of self defense. If the use of a firearm results in death then that death must be incidental to the act of self defense and not an intentional act (i.e. you cannot stand over a person that's been rendered incapable of continuing an act of aggression and intentionally empty the magazine with the express purpose of killing the former aggressor - that's murder).

Someday someone will invent the non-lethal Star Trek "stun gun" that instantly disables an attacker (or group of attackers) without it ever resulting in the death. When that day comes there will no longer be a basis for protecting a lethal firearm for the purpose of self defense under the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Don't worry though, The government won't take your firearms away from you even then. You might be prohibited from using firearms for self defense but the Constitution protects you from having them confiscated.
Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden all favor gun confiscation. At this point they try to make it more palatable by calling it a "buy back" program. We know from Australia that buyback programs become mandatory. It's not confiscation, you can decide to "sell" your weapon or go to jail.

Since most firearms murders are committed with handguns then the same logic to justify mandatory buy backs of so-called assault weapons justifies grabbing hand guns as well.

Because Scalia wrote that the Federal government can regulate firearms doesn't justify every harebrained confiscation scheme cooked up by gun grabbing Democrats. The 2nd amendment must be minimally regulated to protect the law abiding just as our other Constitutional rights are. Mexico has a Constitutional right to bear arms but thanks to the efforts of politicians dedicated to "public safety" only the rich and well connected can legally possess personal firearms. Of course ultra violent cartels responsible for a 100,000 murders rule parts of the country unchallenged by a defenseless populace. It's an example that is scrupulously ignored by a Democrat controlled media.
__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2019, 09:16 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,078
Thanks: 677
Thanked 6,971 Times in 4,989 Posts
Default Re: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
No one is advocating that you don't have a Constitutional Right under the Second Amendment to defend yourself.

The Constitution also prohibits the confiscation of firearms currently owned by law abiding people.Don't worry though, The government won't take your firearms away from you even then.

(MORE

.B
..U
...L
....L
.....S
......H
.......l
........T)

You might be prohibited from using firearms for self defense but the Constitution protects you from having them confiscated.


I just noticed the above posted gems, oddly appearing to me to come from the brain of some comedian, armchair combat veteran, or who knows what.

I can't speak for what others think, but to me that is an outright desire to confiscate all weapons from the people.

The last statement about being prohibited from using firearms for self defense, picture this: You may retain your right to keep your bodily parts. You are merely prohibited from using them in self defense.

Scenario--"Ow! Ow! Stop hitting me, kind sir! You know the law prohits me from hitting you, even though the Constitution tells me I have the right to keep my body parts!"

If the above tidbits did not come straight out of some rectum, I don't know how they got to the monitor.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2019, 09:40 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,078
Thanks: 677
Thanked 6,971 Times in 4,989 Posts
Default Re: where does the blame lie for the recent shootings?

Just a friendly message to all d**kh**ds with gun control on their minds, from Manitou--

"For Republicans and Democrats and others -- if you vote for any type of gun control, pro gun people will vote you out as fast as shlt through a goose."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blame, does, for, lie, recent, shootings, the, where

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0