10 or more dead 20 or more wounded in campus massacre

[skepticalbip]

The rest of you post is too full of BS. but this is exemplary of you ignorance of the laws. Many of the current federal regulations does not allow anyone to own certain categories of fire arms even if they make them themselves from scratch for personal use, not for sale.

really?

Care to show where the bullshit is?

First show you know WTF you are talking about. Are you aware that the bit of your post that I responded to was just something you pulled out of your arse or were you aware that it is illegal for someone to make certain categories of fire arms from scratch themselves for personal use and not for sale but you just threw your assertion in anyway for the hell of it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

really?

Care to show where the bullshit is?

First show you know WTF you are talking about.

I did, and I think that what has gotten you so riled up ... again.

Are you aware that the bit of your post that I responded to was just something you pulled out of your arse or were you aware that it is illegal for someone to make certain categories of fire arms from scratch themselves for personal use and not for sale but you just threw your assertion in anyway for the hell of it.

Temper temper

You still haven't shown what was bullshit.

Still waiting.

 

[skepticalbip]

First show you know WTF you are talking about.

I did, and I think that what has gotten you so riled up ... again.

Are you aware that the bit of your post that I responded to was just something you pulled out of your arse or were you aware that it is illegal for someone to make certain categories of fire arms from scratch themselves for personal use and not for sale but you just threw your assertion in anyway for the hell of it.

Temper temper

You still haven't shown what was bullshit.

Still waiting.

You still didn't answer.

Are you aware that the bit of your post that I responded to was just something you pulled out of your arse or were you aware that it is illegal for someone to make certain categories of fire arms from scratch themselves for personal use and not for sale but you just threw your assertion in anyway for the hell of it.

If you were aware of this then your whole house of cards built around the interstate clause collapses.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I did, and I think that what has gotten you so riled up ... again.

Are you aware that the bit of your post that I responded to was just something you pulled out of your arse or were you aware that it is illegal for someone to make certain categories of fire arms from scratch themselves for personal use and not for sale but you just threw your assertion in anyway for the hell of it.

Temper temper

You still haven't shown what was bullshit.

Still waiting.

You still didn't answer.

Actually, I did.

Are you aware that the bit of your post that I responded to was just something you pulled out of your arse or were you aware that it is illegal for someone to make certain categories of fire arms from scratch themselves for personal use and not for sale but you just threw your assertion in anyway for the hell of it.

If you were aware of this then your whole house of cards built around the interstate clause collapses.

where is the bullshit in this post?

......................
............ Now if gun manufacturers want to give away their product and make it no longer commerce, gun advocates should have no problems.

The rest of you post is too full of BS. but this is exemplary of you ignorance of the laws. Many of the current federal regulations does not allow anyone to own certain categories of fire arms even if they make them themselves from scratch for personal use, not for sale.

really?

Care to show where the bullshit is?

------

so the states have no powers whatsoever because the 10th amendment is always in all situations ignored?

OR is there one particular thing you feel the amendment is not used for?

If it is one thing or even a list of things, neither would mean that the amendment was not used in its entirety, but not used consistantly.

As for the federal firearms laws, which laws are not in keeping with the 10th amendment?

WTF?

Who the fuck claimed the states are always completely ignored?

You did (and I did not the states were being ignored but that the amendment was, the states would then have no power)

you think we haven't been using the whole tenth amendment? I'm sure we have.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What part are we not using?

The whole amendment, specifically " reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Try to find any power that was delegated to the US government in the body of the Constitution to pass any legislation regarding fire arms. There are currently many such federal regulations.

​

When asked what part of the amendment wasn't being used, you said the whole amendment. If it isn't being used, would it not be fair to say it is being ignored?

The problem is that the US govt. only recognizes the 10th when it doesn't get in the way of what they want to do.

uh huh

1918-A federal statute seeks to end child labor by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods that child laborers had produced. In Hammer v. Dagenhart, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the statute goes beyond the powers the Constitution delegated to the federal government. The court finds that under the 10th Amendment, the individual states have the right to decide how to regulate the use of child labor in manufacturing

1935-To combat the Great Depression, Congress and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration establish the National Industrial Recovery Administration (NRA), which is one of the New Deal’s key programs. Its provisions include requirements for minimum wages and maximum hours, and certain price controls. In Schechter Corp. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court says the program exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce and invades the states’ rights to regulate manufacturing.

1995-In United States v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court grants the states more rights. It rules that Congress overstepped its authority under the commerce clause when it passed the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act. To uphold a law that determined the punishment for gun possession and gun use near schools, the court rules, would convert the commerce clause authority into general police power held only by the states under the 10th Amendment.

1997-A federal gun control law, known as the Brady Law, requires local authorities to perform background checks on potential gun buyers. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the law violates the 10th Amendment. The federal government cannot issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, or command state officials to enforce a federal regulatory program. The court says such commands are “fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

2000-Legislation about domestic violence and family law traditionally had been left to the states. In United States v. Morrison, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a provision in the federal Violence Against Women Act because it exceeds Congress’ authority under the commerce clause and impinges on state control. A provision that permits victims of genderbased violence to bring federal lawsuits against their attackers is found to invade states’ police power.

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Tenth Amendment.pdf

Seems like it's getting used to me.And it is getting the way of the federal govt doing what it wants to do.

If it gets in the way of what they want to do then "fuck it". Often it likes the 10th like when they want the states to handle something that would cause the Congress problems with public opinion.

I notice that you didn't accept my challenge of trying to find that power granted to the US govt., opting instead for your silly strawman.

There was no straw man, the tenth amendment gets used, and the commerce clause (which is in the constitution and seems to give gun advocates the most hissy fits) is a thing in the world of real things. Now if gun manufacturers want to give away their product and make it no longer commerce, gun advocates should have no problems.​

----------

As for gun laws prohibiting the individual manufacture of fire arms, if you feel them unconstitutional, you challenge them in court.

And i am sure there are cases that do just that in the pipe line right now.

You have run, hand waved, projected, cussed, evaded and done everything but call glory in order to not deal with this post.

You answered rashly, you got called on it, and now it is YOU who are floundering.

And not for the first time.

Care to point out the specific pieces of bullshit in the post now?

I betcha don't

 

[popsthebuilder]

I'm always sober. I might smoke pot once every two weeks if that. I will gladly remain civil as long as everyone else does.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Those snipers guarding the kids...do they smoke pot? Seriously we need to eliminate things we actually have no need for. We can start with the snipers, then move on to the guns. The real problem with guns is that their social effects are all negative. Far too much is made of gun tradition. Many people in our country can live an entire life and never even touch a gun. They are really not needed. They are dangerous. In fact, the only reason they exist is that they are dangerous and can only be used to either threaten or kill others. So if we want to rule by threat....get a cadre of snipers. You see where the problem is. To buy a gun and become a "responsible gun owner" is to assert that our environment is so wide open there is a lot of territory where guns can be discharged. If you don't accept that is the case, then you shouldn't have a gun. The problem is that more and more, there really are not places to discharge firearms...especially in cities. So that just leaves threat and crime their only use. The psychology of gun ownership for self protection is based on fear you will be confronted with a threat to life and limb and that a gun can somehow alleviate the threat. Somehow, this just doesn't play out that way in real life.

I like how you completely avoided the real reason for the 2nd amendment. So while we all give up our guns and choose to be completely peaceable what are we going to do about the criminals in psycho pass that are killing our kids once we are on harmed? No one said anything about snipers I said ex military marksman marksman isn't necessarily a sniper. Perhaps you're okay with innocent children dying but I'm not. Perhaps you'd rather pretend that we can magically get rid of all the guns in the world but I'm not quite that naive.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

Those snipers guarding the kids...do they smoke pot? Seriously we need to eliminate things we actually have no need for. We can start with the snipers, then move on to the guns. The real problem with guns is that their social effects are all negative. Far too much is made of gun tradition. Many people in our country can live an entire life and never even touch a gun. They are really not needed. They are dangerous. In fact, the only reason they exist is that they are dangerous and can only be used to either threaten or kill others. So if we want to rule by threat....get a cadre of snipers. You see where the problem is. To buy a gun and become a "responsible gun owner" is to assert that our environment is so wide open there is a lot of territory where guns can be discharged. If you don't accept that is the case, then you shouldn't have a gun. The problem is that more and more, there really are not places to discharge firearms...especially in cities. So that just leaves threat and crime their only use. The psychology of gun ownership for self protection is based on fear you will be confronted with a threat to life and limb and that a gun can somehow alleviate the threat. Somehow, this just doesn't play out that way in real life.

I like how you completely avoided the real reason for the 2nd amendment. So while we all give up our guns and choose to be completely peaceable what are we going to do about the criminals in psycho pass that are killing our kids once we are on harmed? No one said anything about snipers I said ex military marksman marksman isn't necessarily a sniper. Perhaps you're okay with innocent children dying but I'm not. Perhaps you'd rather pretend that we can magically get rid of all the guns in the world but I'm not quite that naive.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You said "Mentally stable ex military marksmen".

I strongly suspect that this is oxymoronic.

 

[maxparrish]

Many people in our country can live an entire life and never even touch a gun. They are really not needed. They are dangerous. In fact, the only reason they exist is that they are dangerous and can only be used to either threaten or kill others. So if we want to rule by threat....get a cadre of snipers. You see where the problem is. To buy a gun and become a "responsible gun owner" is to assert that our environment is so wide open there is a lot of territory where guns can be discharged. If you don't accept that is the case, then you shouldn't have a gun....

Fiddlesticks. Who made you the overseer of all society, determining what people are allowed to have according to your idea of "need"? We don't "need" anything other than food and shelter (and a burlap sack for clothing). What most people "WANT" is far more - books, movies, TV, computers. You don't NEED to have access to this forum, but who is telling you that you should not have it?

I have a very nice rifle, one chambered in .243 and optimized to fire a 105 grain hybrid bullet. I mounted a laser range-finding telescopic sight that corrects for elevation, angle, and distance automatically. I WANTED IT. It looks like this one:

The scope ranges to at least 750 yards, and I am sure that is more than enough to have a little fun (a little border shooting at the feet of illegals crossing the border is a hoot...man do they dance.)

See...just a little fun.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I like how you completely avoided the real reason for the 2nd amendment. So while we all give up our guns and choose to be completely peaceable what are we going to do about the criminals in psycho pass that are killing our kids once we are on harmed? No one said anything about snipers I said ex military marksman marksman isn't necessarily a sniper. Perhaps you're okay with innocent children dying but I'm not. Perhaps you'd rather pretend that we can magically get rid of all the guns in the world but I'm not quite that naive.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You said "Mentally stable ex military marksmen".

I strongly suspect that this is oxymoronic.

Marksman is not synonymous with sniper.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

You said "Mentally stable ex military marksmen".

I strongly suspect that this is oxymoronic.

Marksman is not synonymous with sniper.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I know.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Evidently I missed something. Are you trying to claim that all ex military or unstable? I find that very disrespectful if that is indeed what you were implying. Ex military would be a good base but these individuals would need to be trained in urban combat and anti terrorist tactics. It wouldn't hurt for them to be trained in some sort of psychological trouble sign evaluation either.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

It could put able bodied, honerable, patriotic vets to good work and create an exponential amount of real jobs.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

Evidently I missed something. Are you trying to claim that all ex military or unstable? I find that very disrespectful if that is indeed what you were implying. Ex military would be a good base but these individuals would need to be trained in urban combat and anti terrorist tactics. It wouldn't hurt for them to be trained in some sort of psychological trouble sign evaluation either.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I am saying that the proportion of military veterans with behavioural and psychological disorders is sufficiently high that it would be impossible to be sure that any given ex military marksman was also mentally stable. That's not disrespectful; it's factual.

"These people" are not needed anywhere else in the world to prevent schools from being shot up on a regular basis; your assessment that there is a "need" here is deeply flawed.

Your rather odd insistence that the second amendment to your constitution must not be changed is even stranger - your constitution has been changed before, and it can be changed again, if the people (as represented by their elected officials) desire that change.

In principle, your legal system could even go back to the original intent of the second amendment, and allow gun ownership only as a corollary to membership of a well ordered militia; There would be no requirement for any change to the constitution, and the degree of 'order' for your militia can be as strict as the judges decide it must be. It would overturn precedent (which lawmakers hate to do), but if earlier judgements are overruled, there is no reason that the text of the amendment itself could not be construed as implying that Americans have only the right to join the National Guard, and to keep and bear arms only in their capacity as National Guardsmen.

 

[bilby]

It could put able bodied, honerable, patriotic vets to good work and create an exponential amount of real jobs.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

What would you do with all the disabled, dishonourable or unpatriotic vets?

Standing around a school with a loaded rifle isn't a real job. Nor is it 'good work'.

Do you know how we prevent school shootings in my country? It doesn't involve armed guards. Or armed anyone. And while in theory that might sound like it wouldn't work, in practice, it demonstrably works far better than anything that has been tried in your country. So whatever your theoretical reasons are for your suggestions, I would strongly advise that you review them, 'cos they ain't working.

 

[popsthebuilder]

It could put able bodied, honerable, patriotic vets to good work and create an exponential amount of real jobs.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

What would you do with all the disabled, dishonourable or unpatriotic vets?

Standing around a school with a loaded rifle isn't a real job. Nor is it 'good work'.

Do you know how we prevent school shootings in my country? It doesn't involve armed guards. Or armed anyone. And while in theory that might sound like it wouldn't work, in practice, it demonstrably works far better than anything that has been tried in your country. So whatever your theoretical reasons are for your suggestions, I would strongly advise that you review them, 'cos they ain't working.

How are they not working if they have yet to have been employed. So how do you stop it in your country?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

What would you do with all the disabled, dishonourable or unpatriotic vets?

Standing around a school with a loaded rifle isn't a real job. Nor is it 'good work'.

Do you know how we prevent school shootings in my country? It doesn't involve armed guards. Or armed anyone. And while in theory that might sound like it wouldn't work, in practice, it demonstrably works far better than anything that has been tried in your country. So whatever your theoretical reasons are for your suggestions, I would strongly advise that you review them, 'cos they ain't working.

How are they not working if they have yet to have been employed. So how do you stop it in your country?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I'm sorry, but that question is incomprehensible. Could you re-phrase it?

 

[popsthebuilder]

How are they not working if they have yet to have been employed. So how do you stop it in your country?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I'm sorry, but that question is incomprehensible. Could you re-phrase it?

It was two questions.

1) how does am idea get proven wrong before it is ever tried?

2) In what manner does your nation keep innocent children from being murdered violently in some demented spectacle perpetrated by unstable, inland and, or native terrorists?

Thanks.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

I'm sorry, but that question is incomprehensible. Could you re-phrase it?

������ It was two questions.

1) how does am idea get proven wrong before it is ever tried?

I never said anything was proven wrong

2) In what manner does your nation keep innocent children from being murdered violently in some demented spectacle perpetrated by unstable, inland and, or native terrorists?

By strictly limiting access to firearms to those who have a demonstrated need for them, and who can demonstrate competence in their use.

Thanks.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You are welcome.

 

[popsthebuilder]

������ It was two questions.

1) how does am idea get proven wrong before it is ever tried?

I never said anything was proven wrong

2) In what manner does your nation keep innocent children from being murdered violently in some demented spectacle perpetrated by unstable, inland and, or native terrorists?

By strictly limiting access to firearms to those who have a demonstrated need for them, and who can demonstrate competence in their use.

Thanks.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You are welcome.

Guns are attained in many unscrupulous ways here. It's due to the horrible level of greed.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

It could put able bodied, honerable, patriotic vets to good work and create an exponential amount of real jobs.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

What would you do with all the disabled, dishonourable or unpatriotic vets?

Standing around a school with a loaded rifle isn't a real job. Nor is it 'good work'.

Do you know how we prevent school shootings in my country? It doesn't involve armed guards. Or armed anyone. And while in theory that might sound like it wouldn't work, in practice, it demonstrably works far better than anything that has been tried in your country. So whatever your theoretical reasons are for your suggestions, I would strongly advise that you review them, 'cos they ain't working.

That's exactly what the last sentence seems to convey to me.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

I never said anything was proven wrong

2) In what manner does your nation keep innocent children from being murdered violently in some demented spectacle perpetrated by unstable, inland and, or native terrorists?

By strictly limiting access to firearms to those who have a demonstrated need for them, and who can demonstrate competence in their use.

Thanks.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You are welcome.

Guns are attained in many unscrupulous ways here. It's due to the horrible level of greed.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

They aren't here. It's due to the sensible level of enforcement.

There are horribly greedy people who want to take all the cash out of our banks here too; so we have vaults. It's pretty effective.

Greed is universal; it exists everywhere that there are people. School shootings, on the other hand, are almost all in the USA. Every other country is VASTLY more effective than the USA at preventing these events. And the common factor is strict regulation of firearms.

Even in places with lots of firearms - like Switzerland, or Canada, for example - the rules about ownership, licensing, registration and secure storage are strict, and any breaches of the rules are taken VERY seriously by the authorities.

It is possible - even quite easy - to obtain a gun illegally here. But being caught with an illegal gun is such a major crime that few criminals take the risk; and even fewer sad mentally unstable loners with a grudge against their teachers and/or classmates.