The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

[Sledge Hammer]

Please define the word communist, and then explain how the definition fits in your post here.

Also, yes, there are other ways to kill people. But we should be trying to make it harder for them to kill. It's harder to kill 17 people with a butter knife than it is with an AR-15.

Also, it's absolutely fucking insulting to those kids to assume that they're being exploited. Many of these kids are 16-18 years old. They know damn well what they're doing. If they didn't want to speak out, they wouldn't. And good on them for organizing. Shame on you for saying they're being exploited.

Also, please read the second amendment and explain to me what you think "well-regulated militia" means.

When only the ones for banning guns make the news that is picking kids for an agenda and exploiting them. I would never ask kids to go on the news after a tragedy and use the tragedy to get my opinion/agenda heard. Shame on liberals putting these kids on the news and using their tragedy to drive their agenda. You should be pissed at the people putting these kids on the news and writing their speeches. You can get guns on the black market. You can convert rifles to automatic. I saw it done when I was 16 yrs old.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

Regardless of what you think it means, the courts have decided that the second amendment is not absolute. Clearly, the well-regulated bit carries some weight.

Lets look at the second amendment in a historical context, not in the way it's been misrepresented by the NRA.

Historically, the courts have interpreted "the people" as the members of a state's militia. When the Bill of Rights was passed, states had militias that they used for defensive purposes. As the founders feared a tyrannical federal government, they wrote the second amendment to protect state militias from having the right to bear arms infringed. The second amendment, as interpreted by a great many judges and legal scholars, was simply to allow states to protect themselves from an oppressive federal government.

If the second amendment was written to guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, why didn't the founders simply write, "The right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" Instead, they mentioned a well-regulated militia. As read, the second amendment applies to well-regulated militias, not individuals. Otherwise, why even mention militia? Otherwise, why not just say everyone can have a gun?

For example, there are no clauses limiting the first, third, fourth, or fifth amendments. Those are absolute. Those apply to all individuals. However, the "well-regulated militia" clause changes the meaning of the second amendment. I mean, for fuck sake, I studied English and write/edit for a living. I think I know what words mean and how sentences are structured.

So what do you think well-regulated militia means? I don't think I'll actually get an answer to that -- not from you or any other gun rights advocate I've talked to.

Where can I find some of your writings?? Write 4 a living and name calling in politics thread of a football forum??

 

[Sledge Hammer]

Arm the teachers they said, now students can feel even less safe

http://www.ksbw.com/article/seaside-high-teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-in-class/19426017

So that means no teacher should be armed??

 

[Oldfaithful]

View attachment 737

 

[The Raven]

When only the ones for banning guns make the news that is picking kids for an agenda and exploiting them. I would never ask kids to go on the news after a tragedy and use the tragedy to get my opinion/agenda heard. Shame on liberals putting these kids on the news and using their tragedy to drive their agenda. You should be pissed at the people putting these kids on the news and writing their speeches. You can get guns on the black market. You can convert rifles to automatic. I saw it done when I was 16 yrs old.

Over half the country is in favor of gun control. You're in the freakish minority.

Those kids chose to walk out. Nobody made them do it. I think you gun nuts are afraid of opposition -- afraid that kids are making a rational argument for gun control -- and it only feeds your insecurity. Seriously? Blaming liberals for 17 year olds with 4.0 GPAs speaking out?

By the way, just like @K-Dog, you failed to answer my question. How is communism defined? Afraid to answer? Don't know? Afraid it'll make you look dumb? Why avoid it?

Where can I find some of your writings?? Write 4 a living and name calling in politics thread of a football forum??

Pass. Gotta keep that secret identity Truth be told, I only come here to kill time at work when I need a break.

 

[52520Andrew]

So that means no teacher should be armed??

Basically yeah, I mean when even people who by all accounts are qualified(assuming you actually read the news story) to be around guns still make mistakes like this, kinda hard for me to say we should be arming them. Maybe you could find that perfect teacher who deserves to be armed but how will you define it so that they are the only one getting the guns?

 

[Sledge Hammer]

Basically yeah, I mean when even people who by all accounts are qualified(assuming you actually read the news story) to be around guns still make mistakes like this, kinda hard for me to say we should be arming them. Maybe you could find that perfect teacher who deserves to be armed but how will you define it so that they are the only one getting the guns?

Many teachers were in the military. Would u prefer a police officer at every school?? Maybe not a bad idea cuz it’s not only guns. There’s bomb threats and a police officer could run the perimeter. A methane bomb could do more damage than a gun.

 

[52520Andrew]

Many teachers were in the military. Would u prefer a police officer at every school?? Maybe not a bad idea cuz it’s not only guns. There’s bomb threats and a police officer could run the perimeter. A methane bomb could do more damage than a gun.

Again I am asking how would you make sure that only qualified teachers are the ones getting guns?

 

[gtalk12]

When only the ones for banning guns make the news that is picking kids for an agenda and exploiting them. I would never ask kids to go on the news after a tragedy and use the tragedy to get my opinion/agenda heard. Shame on liberals putting these kids on the news and using their tragedy to drive their agenda. You should be pissed at the people putting these kids on the news and writing their speeches. You can get guns on the black market. You can convert rifles to automatic. I saw it done when I was 16 yrs old.

this is a weird one for me considering I am close with the VP of the school. What he tells me is that the kids made it clear that they did not want to take sides on this issue, they even made a mention to this on camera but of course ADULTS.

 

[cobrajet]

Regardless of what you think it means, the courts have decided that the second amendment is not absolute. Clearly, the well-regulated bit carries some weight.

Lets look at the second amendment in a historical context, not in the way it's been misrepresented by the NRA.

Historically, the courts have interpreted "the people" as the members of a state's militia. When the Bill of Rights was passed, states had militias that they used for defensive purposes. As the founders feared a tyrannical federal government, they wrote the second amendment to protect state militias from having the right to bear arms infringed. The second amendment, as interpreted by a great many judges and legal scholars, was simply to allow states to protect themselves from an oppressive federal government.

If the second amendment was written to guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, why didn't the founders simply write, "The right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" Instead, they mentioned a well-regulated militia. As read, the second amendment applies to well-regulated militias, not individuals. Otherwise, why even mention militia? Otherwise, why not just say everyone can have a gun?

For example, there are no clauses limiting the first, third, fourth, or fifth amendments. Those are absolute. Those apply to all individuals. However, the "well-regulated militia" clause changes the meaning of the second amendment. I mean, for fuck sake, I studied English and write/edit for a living. I think I know what words mean and how sentences are structured.

So what do you think well-regulated militia means? I don't think I'll actually get an answer to that -- not from you or any other gun rights advocate I've talked to.

I don’t think it matters anymore what we think a well-regulated militia means. IMHO, we can’t argue that point because the supreme law of this land already determined that for us and it is now set in stone. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Dick Heller that the second amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm regardless of service in a militia.

 

[The Raven]

I don’t think it matters anymore what we think a well-regulated militia means. IMHO, we can’t argue that point because the supreme law of this land already determined that for us and it is now set in stone. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Dick Heller that the second amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm regardless of service in a militia.

So, should convicted felons and domestic abusers be allowed to buy guns?

 

[Willbacker]

So, should convicted felons and domestic abusers be allowed to buy guns?

No but they should vote tho shouldn't they. Them and illegals according to libs.

Its funny. You guys keep calling for more regulation but yet we don't enforce the ones in the books which I'm saying for like the 100th time. Why don't you take the time to look at the laws we have now.

As for the "well regulated militia" how do you know it may never be needed? Libs want big govt control. Why do you think we got rid of England? 2nd amendment is there for good reason.

 

[cobrajet]

So, should convicted felons and domestic abusers be allowed to buy guns?

I always said convicted felons should not be allowed to vote or own guns. You do know that they are very strict with domestic violence, just an allegation that leads to an ExParte order will result in you having to surrender your firearms. One conviction for domestic violence and you lose your right to possess a firearm even if it is a misdemeanor. I feel that domestic violence covers too broad a range and I don’t know if I completely agree with taking someone’s rights away, especially for a misdemeanor first offense. The law states that you must arrest the primary aggressor in a domestic. I am not sure it is fair to take an eighteen year old’s right to own a firearm away for the rest of his life for putting a bruise on his girlfriend’s arm during an argument. Maybe a five or ten year ban for your first misdemeanor and a lifetime ban on a second conviction. Many a police officer have had their police powers suspended because a wife or girlfriend went to court and said she was afraid of an officer (whether true or not) and a protection order (which is very easy to get) was issued.

I do think there should be provisions put in place for public safety. I think if you make statements that you want to kill someone with your firearm, you post pictures online pointing firearms in an a threatening manner, and several people call law enforcement saying that you are unstable and are scared you may commit a mass shooting should be more than enough for law enforcement take your firearms for safe keeping until you can prove to a judge at a hearing that you should get them back. I also don’t know if it would be the end of the world if they raised the age on buying a semi automatic rifle to 21 (which is the age you can legally buy a handgun). I think a pump shotgun, bolt action rifle (not magazine fed) or black powder rifle for hunting should still be available to 18 year olds. I think bump stocks should be banned.

 

[The Raven]

No but they should vote tho shouldn't they. Them and illegals according to libs.

Its funny. You guys keep calling for more regulation but yet we don't enforce the ones in the books which I'm saying for like the 100th time. Why don't you take the time to look at the laws we have now.

As for the "well regulated militia" how do you know it may never be needed? Libs want big govt control. Why do you think we got rid of England? 2nd amendment is there for good reason.

I think they should vote. Voting is our most fundamental, intrinsic right.

Which ones aren't being enforced?

How do I know it won't be needed? Well, I don't, but I'm also not paranoid about government. We got rid of England because they were giving us a pretty raw deal -- taxation without representation and no voice in government. It's different now -- we do have a voice in government.

To me, the right's fear of a tyrannical federal government stems from their disagreeing with Democratic leaders on domestic policy. The right opposes universal healthcare, tuition free higher education, and gun control, arguing that it creates big government. Yet, those ideas are supported by the majority of voters. We govern by democracy here -- majority rules. Over half the country wants gun control. You are in a minority group that is getting smaller every day.

So, how do you reconcile your apparent fear of tyrannical, big government when, in actuality, public policy is decided by majority vote? That doesn't sound all that tyrannical to me.

Moreover, in the off chance that the government becomes tyrannical and authoritarian, how do they enslave us? With the military and the troops? Would you propose that our troops would be complicit in a government takeover?

I always said convicted felons should not be allowed to vote or own guns. You do know that they are very strict with domestic violence, just an allegation that leads to an ExParte order will result in you having to surrender your firearms. One conviction for domestic violence and you lose your right to possess a firearm even if it is a misdemeanor. I feel that domestic violence covers too broad a range and I don’t know if I completely agree with taking someone’s rights away, especially for a misdemeanor first offense. The law states that you must arrest the primary aggressor in a domestic. I am not sure it is fair to take an eighteen year old’s right to own a firearm away for the rest of his life for putting a bruise on his girlfriend’s arm during an argument. Maybe a five or ten year ban for your first misdemeanor and a lifetime ban on a second conviction. Many a police officer have had their police powers suspended because a wife or girlfriend went to court and said she was afraid of an officer (whether true or not) and a protection order (which is very easy to get) was issued.

I do think there should be provisions put in place for public safety. I think if you make statements that you want to kill someone with your firearm, you post pictures online pointing firearms in an a threatening manner, and several people call law enforcement saying that you are unstable and are scared you may commit a mass shooting should be more than enough for law enforcement take your firearms for safe keeping until you can prove to a judge at a hearing that you should get them back. I also don’t know if it would be the end of the world if they raised the age on buying a semi automatic rifle to 21 (which is the age you can legally buy a handgun). I think a pump shotgun, bolt action rifle (not magazine fed) or black powder rifle for hunting should still be available to 18 year olds. I think bump stocks should be banned.

You first argue that the second amendment is set in stone and folks can buy guns, and then you propose that the right CAN be infringed in some cases. So which is it? Where do you draw the line? What is the barometer for ensuring public safety through gun control, and how is it objective?

 

[Somerset Ravens]

I think they should vote. Voting is our most fundamental, intrinsic right.

Which ones aren't being enforced?

How do I know it won't be needed? Well, I don't, but I'm also not paranoid about government. We got rid of England because they were giving us a pretty raw deal -- taxation without representation and no voice in government. It's different now -- we do have a voice in government.

To me, the right's fear of a tyrannical federal government stems from their disagreeing with Democratic leaders on domestic policy. The right opposes universal healthcare, tuition free higher education, and gun control, arguing that it creates big government. Yet, those ideas are supported by the majority of voters. We govern by democracy here -- majority rules. Over half the country wants gun control. You are in a minority group that is getting smaller every day.

So, how do you reconcile your apparent fear of tyrannical, big government when, in actuality, public policy is decided by majority vote? That doesn't sound all that tyrannical to me.

Moreover, in the off chance that the government becomes tyrannical and authoritarian, how do they enslave us? With the military and the troops? Would you propose that our troops would be complicit in a government takeover?



You first argue that the second amendment is set in stone and folks can buy guns, and then you propose that the right CAN be infringed in some cases. So which is it? Where do you draw the line? What is the barometer for ensuring public safety through gun control, and how is it objective?

You say we all have a voice in government. We should but we don't. With our federal government it seems to be cash talks and all the rest walks.

You say most Americans favor gun control, then why no change from Congress? Could it be the money of the NRA?

 

[The Raven]

You say we all have a voice in government. We should but we don't. With our federal government it seems to be cash talks and all the rest walks.

You say most Americans favor gun control, then why no change from Congress? Could it be the money of the NRA?

We all have a voice. The issue is that we have 100 senators and 435 representatives. Pretty hard to get 535 people to agree on anything, especially when about a quarter of them want the federal government to consist of a military and a wall.

Congress isn't doing anything about guns because it has a Republican majority and Republican politicians tend to be bought and paid for by the NRA (just as Dems are usually owned by teachers and unions, if I'm being fair). But that money doesn't necessarily mean we don't have a voice. I mean, those Republicans that take NRA money also represent pro-gun districts (Hello, Andy Harris). Those Democrats that take union money often represent pro-labor districts (Hello, Conor Lamb).

I think a lot of people live in a bubble and don't realize that their views are sometimes in the minority. That lack of political awareness creates in them the belief that the system is rigged, when in reality, it's not.

 

[Somerset Ravens]

We all have a voice. The issue is that we have 100 senators and 435 representatives. Pretty hard to get 535 people to agree on anything, especially when about a quarter of them want the federal government to consist of a military and a wall.

Congress isn't doing anything about guns because it has a Republican majority and Republican politicians tend to be bought and paid for by the NRA (just as Dems are usually owned by teachers and unions, if I'm being fair). But that money doesn't necessarily mean we don't have a voice. I mean, those Republicans that take NRA money also represent pro-gun districts (Hello, Andy Harris). Those Democrats that take union money often represent pro-labor districts (Hello, Conor Lamb).

I think a lot of people live in a bubble and don't realize that their views are sometimes in the minority. That lack of political awareness creates in them the belief that the system is rigged, when in reality, it's not.

I certainly agree with you that it is hard to get 535 to agree, but it should be easy enough to get them to compromise for the greater good.

 

[The Raven]

I certainly agree with you that it is hard to get 535 to agree, but it should be easy enough to get them to compromise for the greater good.

They don't agree on what the greater good is.

 

[cobrajet]

We all have a voice. The issue is that we have 100 senators and 435 representatives. Pretty hard to get 535 people to agree on anything, especially when about a quarter of them want the federal government to consist of a military and a wall.

Congress isn't doing anything about guns because it has a Republican majority and Republican politicians tend to be bought and paid for by the NRA (just as Dems are usually owned by teachers and unions, if I'm being fair). But that money doesn't necessarily mean we don't have a voice. I mean, those Republicans that take NRA money also represent pro-gun districts (Hello, Andy Harris). Those Democrats that take union money often represent pro-labor districts (Hello, Conor Lamb).

I think a lot of people live in a bubble and don't realize that their views are sometimes in the minority. That lack of political awareness creates in them the belief that the system is rigged, when in reality, it's not.

I am not convinced that people who want strict gun control are in the majority. I think a lot of people support banning bump stocks and good background checks done, but I am not sure the majority of Americans want to go as far as you would probably want us to go.

 

[cobrajet]

They don't agree on what the greater good is.

What is greater good to you may not be greater good to me though. You could never get agreement on that. Take the abortion issue, pro-life and pro-choice individuals are on the opposite ends of the spectrum and the chance that they could ever come together is 0%