Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
I've never said anything close to that. All I've said is that everyone should undergo a background check to make sure we aren't putting guns in the hands of people that have been convicted of a felony. I've said anyone who is going to carry a firearm should be required to get a basic safety course so we don't end up with people that have zero experience in handling a gun walking the streets with one stuck in their pants.

You know, common sense measures for the basic safety of everyone. And none of that would prevent anyone without a felony conviction of owning or carrying a gun.

There are gun nuts and responsible firearm owners. I'm not a gun nut. Yet I would be willing to bet I own more guns than most gun owners. I'm pro gun. Not pro nut job.

People such as yourself do more to harm the future of firearms ownership than anyone else. Taking some hard line stance against common sense only makes the anti gun people's ranks grow because they see people such as yourself as being extremists and willing to put a gun in the hands of anyone, any where, any time.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
Originally Posted by 40YEARSWAITING
We have seen how the Democrats operate.

They send in their violent Brown Shirts to mingle with the regular, lawful protesters and then they explode in violence.
Next they cry that the police cracked down on peaceful protesters.

Rinse and Repeat.

If you replaced the word Democrat for the word Republican it would sound just like Jan. 6th.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Rational basis to deny a right.

Who is requiring background checks for abortion? I mean it is common sense to ensure only those that really need one get one. Maybe we should require training for one as well. I mean, we should stop nut jobs from obtaining abortion.


Again, you will restrict an enumerated right and call it common sense because YOU think FEEL it should be restricted.

It can be hard to understand that other people have rights that you FEEL should be restricted. But that is what freedom is actually about.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
Allowing a felon to buy a gun endangers us all. Allowing someone to carry a gun with zero experience or training in handling a firearm endangers us all. An abortion does not. Just like the laws on civil rights endangers nobody else. This isn't difficult.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,001
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,001
Likes: 128
Originally Posted by FrankZ
And yet you would insist people get a license from the government to exercise their right to bear arms, cause "common sense" and "public safety".

I don't expect anyone that doesn't want to bear arms to do so. I wouldn't compel anyone to own arms if they didn't feel the need to, but some would require asking the government for permission even though it is a right.


I'm pretty sure that there are 10 people in Buffalo that don't give a damn about gun rights.. I bet their families don't care either.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/1099008586/mass-shootings-us-2022-tally-number


It's Mid May and we've already had 198 Mass Shootings in the USA.... Just a guess here, but I doubt that anyone who was shot in those shooting cares about Gun Rights. I doubt the families of those killed give a damn about gun rights...


As for the NRA,,, They used to be a great organization. They produced some of the best gun educational tools ever. Then somehow, they turned into idiots.....

I don't see them, the most powerful gun lobby in the world, presenting ANY IDEAS on how to curb gun violence.. NO MEANINGFUL IDEAS.. NO HELP! Mass shootings occur and the NRA jumps into action to make sure that everyone knows that guns don't kill people, people kill people.


My thought is simple,, find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those that have criminal histories or histories of mental illness. But NOOOOOOO... Everyone has a right to a gun.....

Has anyone asked about the rights of those that were killed and injured in Mass Shootings? Do they not have rights?

Does this thinking make me a Snowflake? if so, I'm ok with it. If wanting to find some way to stop gun violence makes me a Snowflake, so be it. If Believing that those that fall victim to gun violance have rights as powerful and important as gun rights,, Yup, I'm a snowflake..


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Allowing a felon to buy a gun endangers us all. Allowing someone to carry a gun with zero experience or training in handling a firearm endangers us all. An abortion does not. Just like the laws on civil rights endangers nobody else. This isn't difficult.

When you believe rational basis is a reason for removing a right, no it isn't difficult. Allowing people to be free and understanding that freedom does not mean a guarantee of safety is difficult for people who need governmental control of their lives.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
Originally Posted by FrankZ
When you believe rational basis is a reason for removing a right, no it isn't difficult. Allowing people to be free and understanding that freedom does not mean a guarantee of safety is difficult for people who need governmental control of their lives.

What "right" did anything I proposed "remove"? None.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
When you believe rational basis is a reason for removing a right, no it isn't difficult. Allowing people to be free and understanding that freedom does not mean a guarantee of safety is difficult for people who need governmental control of their lives.

Quote
What "right" did anything I proposed "remove"? None.
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.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
Do you have any idea what "a regulated militia" means? You love to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part while ignoring the "regulated militia" part. But that's pretty common actually.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Yes, it means well equipped. That was the meaning at the time.

But you will argue all sorts of other crap using rational basis to deny people their rights.

Also, in was a style at the times to use a prefuncatray clause to add commentary. The actual functionary clause is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We are the people.

1 member likes this: 40YEARSWAITING
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
reg·u·late

control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

My only argument is that you must have no idea what the word regulate means.

You had to totally change the wording of what it actually does say to fit your narrative and then claim I'm the one who will "argue all kind of crap".


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Originally Posted by FrankZ
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.

That comma stands for "and".

And the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infrindged.

1 member likes this: SuperBrown
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
reg·u·late

control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

My only argument is that you must have no idea what the word regulate means.

You had to totally change the wording of what it actually does say to fit your narrative and then claim I'm the one who will "argue all kind of crap".

You continue to get trapped by the idea of a perfunctory clause. It is a A reason, not THE reason. It was a writing style of the times. In the end the teeth of the amendment is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is inconvenient to statists who believe the government is there to protect us and treat us like subjects.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
No, I addressed it correctly.

The "rights' he cares about should be free from interference. Other rights, especially enumerated rights, should be burdened to make him feel safer.

It is the hypocrisy of "the rights I care about are more important than the rights you care about".

Which I find hilarious. Everyone still has the right not to get an abortion. Nobody is trying to deprive anyone from not getting an abortion. Just like all of the people who fought against gay marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Nobody is trying to force anyone to get an abortion. Just like religion. Everyone has the right to practice their religion and believe as they choose. They do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on the rest of society through legislation. Yet they keep doing it.

Pepe must control the world AND WOMEN!

[Linked Image from thehill.com]


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
So they said "well regulated militia" but didn't mean it. Got it.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
Pepe is his own militia.

[Linked Image from library.kissclipart.com]


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Quote
What did it mean to be well regulated?
One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings
of words change or diverge.
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed,
well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in
that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather
that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf You should be happy since it is CNN.

But I didn't say they didn't mean it. I said, and I will type really slowly for you, is that it is a perfunctory clause. It is A not THE ONLY reason.


Give you one word of advice, don't use Merriam-Webster during constitutional debates. Legal meaning of words and dictionary meaning can vary, greatly at times.

1 member likes this: Ballpeen
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
Since it's not specific, 2A could just as easily mean volunteer state militias (National Guard minus fed control). And since well regulated means well disciplined, we trained, well organized... I think it eliminates about 50% gun sales from jump, even if it is translated to an individual right and not a true militia. Why? Because at least half of the people with a gun, or access to a gun in this country, have no training at all.


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,780
Likes: 920
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,780
Likes: 920
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Do you have any idea what "a regulated militia" means? You love to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part while ignoring the "regulated militia" part. But that's pretty common actually.

The "well regulated militia" is given as a reason that the pre-existing, inalienable right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it's not rationale for granting the right.


And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir

#GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
Words have meaning. I'm sorry that you feel need to use a former AG of trump as one of your sources of the constitution to try and support your claims as we all know experts on the constitution often have conflicting opinions as to interpretations.

Jeffrey Rosen is the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center.

He was the acting AG under trump during his final days in office.

Would you like me to show you how others disagree?


A Well-Regulated Militia

When I worked on the Hill, I was initially amused when Senators would submit a statement to the record about a bill that would pass overwhelmingly. “Why were they spiking the ball?” I wondered to myself. I eventually asked a more seasoned colleague who explained it wasn’t about vanity, rather it was about documenting legislative intent. If there was ever a court challenge or controversy about the bill, the legislative intent could be understood by the statements members made at the time of passage.

I’ve been thinking about that in the context of the second amendment—the right to bear arms—so I went back to read the intent of the founders. I found the answer in Federalist #29 in which Alexander Hamilton explained the meaning of the phrase “a well-regulated militia.” To understand, however, it helps to put yourself in the context of 1789 America.

The War of Independence was still a fresh memory—closer in time to 1776 than we are today to 9/11. The memory of that experience included a well-developed suspicion of standing armies as a tool of tyranny. Just look at the Declaration of Independence. Its 27 grievances against King George III included protests over:

stationing a standing army among the population in times of peace;
rendering military authority superior to civilian authority;
seizing private property to house troops;
protecting soldiers accused of crimes from trial; and
the crown’s prosecution of war, encouragement of insurrection against local authorities, and support for native nations’ attacks on the colonies.

There are at least a half-dozen specific examples in our Declaration that warned about the threat to liberty of a standing army.

So the founders, suspicious that a standing army could become a tool of some future tyrant, created a system of checks and balances to thwart a federal army ever threatening the liberties of American citizens. Their solution was a well-regulated militia.

In 1789, a militia was not a self-appointed force of citizens in camo running around in the woods by themselves. Militias would be raised by each state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact that they would be defending their families, their neighbors, and their homes. Because they might someday have to operate as a combined force, the militias were to be “well-regulated”—meaning trained to standards set by the federal government.

There is a myth—or misconception—that the right to bear arms was a guarantee of individual gun ownership. The Supreme Court didn’t adopt that interpretation until a 5-4 opinion in 2008—219 years after the adoption of the Constitution!

Again put yourself in the mind of a founder in 1789. This was a great experiment in liberal democracy and republican government. As a “republic,” everything the state did was a public thing—including defense. Liberal democracies rely on free institutions to protect rights. So you have to see the potential power of the federal government—including a standing army—as offset by the power of a militia under the authority of the states that made up the union. It wasn’t that one man with a gun would stop tyranny: it was that the free association of citizens organized in state governments would act as a bulwark against the power of the central government.

In that context, the second amendment wasn’t about an individual’s right to bear arms: it was about preventing the federal government from interfering in the ability of the individual states to establish “well regulated militias” and thereby protect liberty. Just as the founders created a constitutional system with three co-equal branches of government in opposition and balance with one another, they believed the militia would meet the needs of national defense while also balancing the potential tyrannical power of a standing army.

The American republic was created to be a deliberative republic. Reason and debate are supposed to prevail over emotion and cynical assertions of power. Among the industrialized nations of the world, only the United States tolerates mass violence with guns like we’ve seen this week. Where others have seen spasms of gun violence in recent decades—as in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere—governments have acted to protect their citizens by restricting access to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. In the United States, today, we remain paralyzed—not by fear, not by Constitutional parameters, and not by the intent of the founders. No, we are paralyzed right now by a Senate leadership that simply refuses to even consider legislation to address this crisis. It is a willful dereliction of duty, and it must end.

https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/

From Alexander Hamilton himself explaining this in 1788.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

It's quite clear that he is speaking of a regulated militia exactly as stated in the constitution.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
One could take that tack. SCOTUS has written opinion that suggests that anyone willing to defend the country is the ad-hoc militia. Being equipped to do the job is important, training is irrelevant without the equipment. I cant speak to the level training people have in general. I think the idea that half of gun owners have no training is likely exaggerated.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
Only the militia was put in first setting up the tone for why and under what circumstances were dictated for owning them. The militia part of that right was what was actually preexisting.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Are you in a militia? If not you should turn your guns in. Put up and show us how much you believe in this.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,905
Likes: 1296
So pointing out how ridiculous your claims are and trying to change what the constitution actually says means I shouldn't own a gun? Now you're just going off the rails. Expected results. It's legal for me to own those guns. That is based on current laws. Not based on some document written in the 1700's by men wearing wigs.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dude, COTUS was designed to limit the control of the government on the people, you argue the exact opposite.

My rights don't come from a piece of paper. I have them. Period.

You seem to continue to ignore "shall not be infringed" while beating your sofist drum.

You think the government should have more control over arms, go get 2A changed to say something else. There is a process for that, it is in COTUS. But until then, understand the right is protects specifically from government interference, regardless of reason. Rational basis is not appropriate when dealing with constitutionally protected rights, rights I already have.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,119
Likes: 204
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,119
Likes: 204
I always felt that part of gun ownership should be that you have to take a gun ownership/safety class and demonstrate a reasonable level of proficiency. This would allow you to to own a hand gun or hunting rifle. If you wanted to own something more potent like an AR-15 then you would have to take and advanced course for a special license.

This would be just like getting a driver's license then a Class C license if you want to be able to drive a semi.

JMO


People who lack accountability think everything is an attack
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
One issue I have to licensing is it can be used to deny a right.

Take a handgun permit in HI. It is only valid in the county it was issued, that is if they decide to give you one at all. It is very obvious the state has worked the system to say "well, we offer a permit so there is no constitutional issue" while at the same time only allowing a very small handful of people to obtain the permit. This isn't about "common sense" exercise of a right, it is about denying it and the state trying to say they aren't with a straight face. I have heard talk of new training requirements coming soon that would be almost impossible to meet if you have a job, coupled with the high cost to get the training and pay for the license.

Regulation becomes denial, a right delayed is a right denied.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,119
Likes: 204
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,119
Likes: 204
Anything can be abused and/or done poorly.

Our current status clearly doesn't work.
I don't know what better options there are, or even if there are any better options.


People who lack accountability think everything is an attack
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
The COTUS was meant to be a guard against abuse by the government, specifically the Federal government. It was never intended to restrict the people, except where laws would be written that did not conflict with the constitution.

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Only the militia was put in first setting up the tone for why and under what circumstances were dictated for owning them. The militia part of that right was what was actually preexisting.


To circle back:
Quote
The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship.
- District of Columbia vs Heller.

This should assuage your misguided notion of militia and vis a vis "well regulated". Heller is law of the land, at least until SCOTUS decided differently.

BTW, Dick Heller is a pretty neat guy.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
Imagine the left using that to go after guns, sneaky like, in return for ROE... Guns and abortions or no guns and abortions... I wonder how the right would feel then.


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 98
K
All Pro
Offline
All Pro
K
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 98
Pit you do realize that this has all been litigated and you are barking up an empty tree. In D.C. v Heller in 2008 the court said “the 2nd amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the home and that the DC handgun ban was unconstitutional.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
The violence started in 2016... or maybe even 08-09 with the Tea Party.

Opinion: What a Nobel laureate's take on Donald Trump reveals about today

(CNN)Shortly after Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison wrote in The New Yorker: "Unlike any nation in Europe, the United States holds whiteness as the unifying force. Here, for many people, the definition of 'Americanness' is color." Reflecting on efforts -- largely by White men -- to define themselves by sustaining that poisonous definition, Morrison argues that those "who are prepared to abandon their humanity out of fear of black men and women, suggest the true horror of lost status."

In Morrison's formulation, fear-driven devotion to racial status is more powerful to many White Americans than even self-interest, shame or any belief in humanity. And it is this reality, that White Americans' anxieties in the face of a changing country have been and continue to be weaponized with disastrous and violent results, that has been instrumental in fueling the spread of so-called "replacement theory," the false and bigoted claim that elites are conspiring to replace Whites with minorities.

Morrison passed away in 2019, but her words echoed with a prescient rattle this week. They hovered, hauntingly, over a Tops grocery store in a majority-Black East Buffalo neighborhood, where a young White man livestreamed the racist mass killing of 10 people. The alleged shooter also posted a hateful rant self-identifying as a White supremacist and expressing a belief in replacement theory.

[Linked Image from cdn.cnn.com]

"Racism, anti-Semitism and a resentment of immigrants are nothing new," emphasized Frida Ghitis. "What is new is that in America, a land of diversity and immigrants, what used to be a fringe theory has found sympathetic voices in one of the two main political parties."

Ghitis diagnosed deep irony that the "growing threat to democracy in the United States is occurring at a moment when US foreign policy has accomplished an extraordinary, historic feat; one that among other things serves to fortify democracy around the world." That feat? Shoring up NATO, which is attracting new members, and leading America's allies with a cohort that may soon include Sweden and Finland. "It's a high point in America's global leadership," Ghitis concluded, "but only if you look at it with one eye closed."

Like Morrison, theologian and activist Keith Magee pondered the brutal, dehumanizing cost of a race-fueled fear of change on all Americans. Writing specifically as a Black father of a young Black son, Magee addressed White teenage males after the slaughter in Buffalo to express empathy with the change and trauma of 21st century pandemic life -- and ask a question.

"Because you are male, you were born a winner of the patriarchal jackpot. You are more likely to rise to the top of the career ladder and will be better paid on your way up. The state will not attempt to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body. On top of that, because you are White, and you live in a country that is structurally racist, you enjoy the huge privilege your skin color gives you ... My question to you is this -- what are you going to do with all that luck?"

He urged young White American men to consider that "luck, like love, is unlimited. The more you share it, the more there is to go around. You will not lose your place in the world if other people are no longer marginalized."

[Linked Image from cdn.cnn.com]

Dean Obeidallah rejected the toxic notion that Whiteness could ever define American identity, arguing that that "demographic change is nothing to fear in America. In fact, it's part of what makes our nation so exceptional ... It's why on the Great Seal of the United States we see the words in Latin, 'E Pluribus Unum' -- which means 'Out of Many, One.' Those who reject that philosophy to instead embrace the 'Great Replacement Theory' are literally rejecting what it means to be American."

In the wake of a horrific event like the Buffalo massacre, people understandably search for solutions, noted Nicole Hemmer, who observed that the "problem of radicalization and right-wing violence is a deeply entrenched and difficult one, one with complexities that require a society-wide approach across political and social institutions to address ... That endeavor is made more difficult by staunch conservative opposition to necessary reforms. Which doesn't mean it will be impossible to defang right-wing radicalism, but rather that Americans will have to enact systemic changes over the long-term to bring that violence under control."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/22/opinions/opinion-weekly-column-carr/index.html


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,001
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,001
Likes: 128
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
When you believe rational basis is a reason for removing a right, no it isn't difficult. Allowing people to be free and understanding that freedom does not mean a guarantee of safety is difficult for people who need governmental control of their lives.

Quote
What "right" did anything I proposed "remove"? None.
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.

What "Regulated Militia" did the Buffalo shooter belong too? How about any of the 198 Mass Shootings from this year. Did any of the shooters actually belong to a "regulated Militia"?


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
It is obvious that rights can be abused. Ironically people use mass shootings as a way to justify gun control but fail to mention the daily killings in some cities as it doesn't push the agenda.

We keep being told that just a little more "common sense" will solve the problem. If we could just do background checks, or more of them. If we ban certain, scary looking, guns. NY state already has pretty strict laws and even a red flag law. The shooter was had contact and would have been a good candidate for red flags. In the end the people in that store might have faired better if they had taken their own safety in hand and been prepared to meet force with force.

Regardless see https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1946205/re-and-the-violence-begins#Post1946205 about the milita debate.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,780
Likes: 920
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,780
Likes: 920
Originally Posted by Damanshot
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
When you believe rational basis is a reason for removing a right, no it isn't difficult. Allowing people to be free and understanding that freedom does not mean a guarantee of safety is difficult for people who need governmental control of their lives.

Quote
What "right" did anything I proposed "remove"? None.
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.

What "Regulated Militia" did the Buffalo shooter belong too? How about any of the 198 Mass Shootings from this year. Did any of the shooters actually belong to a "regulated Militia"?

Read it again. A well regulated militia is the reason we shall not infringe on the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It is not the reason for granting the right.


And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir

#GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
FrankZ posted a pdf discussion of this by Constitutional experts Jeffrey Rosen (former AG under Trump ) and Jack Rakove. Refer to page four about rather the 2A is a right to own guns.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 05/22/22 09:37 PM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
1 member likes this: jfanent
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
FrankZ posted a pdf discussion of this by Constitutional experts Jeffrey Rosen (former AG under Trump ) and Jack Rakove. Refer to page four about rather the 2A is a right to own guns.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf


He also posted an excerpt from Heller which is straight from SCOTUS' mouth.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,001
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,001
Likes: 128
Originally Posted by jfanent
Originally Posted by Damanshot
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
When you believe rational basis is a reason for removing a right, no it isn't difficult. Allowing people to be free and understanding that freedom does not mean a guarantee of safety is difficult for people who need governmental control of their lives.

Quote
What "right" did anything I proposed "remove"? None.
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.

What "Regulated Militia" did the Buffalo shooter belong too? How about any of the 198 Mass Shootings from this year. Did any of the shooters actually belong to a "regulated Militia"?

Read it again. A well regulated militia is the reason we shall not infringe on the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It is not the reason for granting the right.

OK,,, so what regulated Militia did he belong too?


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 386
The Straw Man Militia.

2 members like this: jfanent, MemphisBrownie
Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus And The Violence Begins...

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5