New Gun Control Measures Set To Be Announced Today By The Senate

he's mentally deranged

 

Unless its prejudiced against white people, then it’s just fine here. How is this more egregious than someone posting just today and yesterday that “all white people are crazy”? Where were you for that?

So selective in your outrage.

 

So...I have to read every single post before commenting on any one post?

Good to know.

#Tomatrorulesforposting

 

Well... gotta give you credit for owning your pathetic transphobia

 

I see a gunman tried to enter a Summer Camp today in the DFW area and kill some kids. I know not really anything that new.

I do, however, want to know the age of the gunman because it might be a case in which the proposed age change to 21 years to exercise the Constitutional Right to own AR 15's might have been a difference. If so we can all celebrate that this massive change has been proposed.

 

And to be clear, I am outraged that anyone would post/believe ALL white people are crazy.

Are you outraged that Commodore thinks trans people are mentality unstable or do you have selective outrage?

 

You were in the thread.

on clutchfans, any perceived slight, no matter how small, toward blacks, hispanics, gays, trans etc is opposed quickly and with great fervor. That is a wonderful thing. Yet, it’s back to the 1940’s standards if the slight is towards white people. You can generalize, stereotype, fantasize about ridding society of them etc. and it’s all just fine. It doesn’t matter if you are a white person posting that stuff. Its damaging. Its thoughtless. Its ignorant.

 

Are you outraged that Commodore thinks trans people are mentality unstable or do you have selective outrage?[/QUOTE]


Well that was kinda my point. I dont have to express outrage over that because many others did right away. I was the only one calling out the dude who said all whites are crazy.

 

I am in dozens of threads. I don't and haven't read every single post in every single thread I have participated in.

 

Nice non answer... do you agree with Commodore's post and belief that trans people are mentally unstable or do you believe he is wrong?

 

Of course I don’t agree. And I already alluded to it in another post, one that you actually quoted. Please just scroll up and see for yourself and stop trying to deflect for no reason. Hypocrisy is what you displayed, not me.

 

We're all here cause we ain't all there.

 

Sorry, I missed where you specifically said you disagreed. I read your post "in general" but until this post, nothing specific to your feeling.

I am glad that you are like (hopefully) most people in the world feel that way.

 

I'm not familiar with the person. How has it been determined that there is a mental disability?

 

Incorrect. Not only did they not go to lengths to explain that individual arms were for a militia that would be well regulated and well disciplined, they didn't limit the possession of individual arms to a militia at all, but instead said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Prior to the revolution, there were no restrictions on free white men possessing arms. There were laws prohibiting transfer to and possession by people in servitude and native Americans, but they were not considered "people" within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

They went after pirates (or privateers of other countries). You did not need a letter of Marque to have cannons on your ship, people with cannons on their ship already were given letters of Marque to attack the British navy.

 

They also said "in order to maintain a well regulated milita" and in the Federalist Papers stated several times that "well regulated" meant having a discipline and a command structure including officers.

The point though is that every word of the Amendment actually matters. Yes the Founders did say the right to "bear" arms but they also explained why that right was.

Except as you note above not everyone was allowed to bear arms and certainly the US Navy had no problems going after other armed ships. This is still a bizzarre argument as the Letter of Marque is essentially legalized piracy. The US both pursued the pirate Jean Lafitte but also hired him also. The American military certainly had no qualms taking Lafitte's cannons when he wasn't in service to him.

As I said though this is a historical argument but largely pointless to current issues unless you believe that the US Navy should issues letter of Marque to Somali pirates.

Given that you're already stated you don't agree with Heller and are arguing for individual ownership of cannon and other such heavy weapons that is an extreme position. Further it's not a position that represents a Lockean view of rights. Locke did believe individual liberty was very important but that it required laws and that rights require responsibility. As we see frequently all of our Constitutional rights are limited and can be taken away when used irresponsibly. As we frequently discuss speech is limited, the right to vote can be taken away, and free practice of religion doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice or even polygamy. Under that view and as Scalia laid out then certainly firearms can be limited.

The argument on the other hand is that individuals should be allowed much more unfettered ownership of arms including heavy arms, to protect their rights, is much closer to Anarchy where individual power dictates. Where in order to feel safe from others exercising their right to arms I have to arm myself. That isn't a free society but a distrustful society with no faith in laws and common institutions.

 

Who is we?

 

Even more baffling that it's some perceived as a tremendous burden to have anyone to have to wait until they are 21 to get a literally overkill weapon like an AR 15. For good reason, we require that age requirement for alcohol. NRA **** must taste good.

 

AOC: Expanding background checks to include juvenile records in the Senate gun bill might be racist

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022...n-the-senate-gun-bill-might-be-racist-n476129

excerpt:

​

more at the link

 

Actually they said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Federalist Papers were not adopted. The 2nd Amendment was. It contains a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A faithful reading of the amendment is that the government can't restrict whatever it considers people from bearing whatever it considers arms (at the time of ratification, free white men and muskets and cannon).

Not every word of the Amendment has operative effect. It explains why they thought this was important to include. It also is not a good argument for the limitation of certain kinds of weapons. It calls for the people to have arms that would be effective in destroying tyranny or repelling a foreign invader. The whole concept was that the population be armed. They would be called up as the militia (which is all males between 17 and 45 years of age), in time of need and are supposed to bring their weapons with them to fight in a war.

Not everyone was allowed to vote, or own property, or be free from bondage. That isn't an argument that the 2nd Amendment in particular is limited to organized militiamen (unless you think black people, native Americans and women now don't have freedom of speech, a right to counsel, free exercise of religion, etc.) It protected the right of all those who were considered "the people".

They didn't go after armed ships simply because they were armed. That was not a crime.

What does that have to do with a right to bear arms? An arrest is legalized kidnapping. An execution is legalized murder.

You can treat someone differently under different contexts.

The US government hires people I have no particular fondness for to do bad things on our behalf all the time.

Extreme doesn't mean incorrect.

Yes, and? I never mentioned Locke. The 2nd Amendment never mentions Locke. What Locke thought is not what is in the text of the Constitution.

I disagree that this is not a free society. It is a much more free society, where you get to decide how much or how little you want to put into your own defense. The idea that a society where only the government is allowed to have weapons is more free is absurd. The countries that have disarmed their citizens have not historically had strong records of individual freedom (see Germany circa 1939).