| There are 17 comments on this blog. |
|
|
Yes, and trumpy is usually so happy to share pics of him doing important stuff, like signing bills, but the WH said they would not release pics of him signing that bill.
|
|
|
I thought this was a hand job resolution cause of Tramp's age...my bad.
|
|
|
Some of you seem pretty to think Trump is some evil bastard who would send in the military to kick people out of this country.
|
|
|
I give him as much respect as he deserves.
|
|
|
The issue is that you cannot take away a constitutional right without due process - even if you are mentally ill.
|
|
|
Fisher, You are right but how can you blame the mentally ill as a whole when you gave the “bad one”the ability to harm the larger population as a whole. Both guns and someone who is mentally ill that wants to harm us should never meet!
|
|
|
I have never been into guns but facts don’t lie.Mass shootings are actually a very small percentage of gun violence in America. 54% are suicide. Most mass shootings are the result of domestic violence in private homes. 2/3 of the other deaths by other gun violence are young black men. There is not a blanket solution to gun deaths in America. In the UK gun deaths skyrocketed after guns were made illegal.Criminals already have guns.Guns are not the only weapons out there that a psycho can use to
Kill.
|
|
|
DT, how much respect do you think Tramp gives the office of the President of the US????
|
|
|
not to be insensitive to the subject matter, but:
number of school shooting deaths in 2017: 15 (wikipedia)
number of alcohol poisoning deaths in 2017: 2,160 (cdc.org)
so lets outlaw booze. oh wait, we tried that. it resulted in even more deaths.
bottom line is that they want to take guns away so that when they turn all the walmarts into fema camps, we can't rise up and object.
'the beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away.'
|
|
|
The problem is neither mental illness nor guns.
The problem is that the FBI missed most of the mass murders of the last 20 years and had prior knowledge of most of them.
They missed:
911......they knew the terrorists were taking flying lessons.
The Boston bombers......The evil Russians told the FBI that they were terrorists.
Fort Hood Massacre.....tons of prior infomation about the terrorist's activities.
San Bernardino....FBI knew wife was a terrorist.
Orlando.......FBI knew about killer but let him go.
Texas church massacre.....killer's violent past should have prevented him from obtaining gun.
And lastly Parkland FL.........as recently as 6 weeks ago one of killer's friends call the FBI to warn them about him.
|
|
|
The 2nd Amendment:
"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."
While I am not against private gun ownership, I still wonder why all of you "gun rights" fuckers and "ant-gun rights" fuckers (including Supreme Court Justices) HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The right of gun ownership in this statement is directly connected to the "well-regulated militia" that is "necessary to the security of a free state". It's NOT an independent clause. I have still not seen anyone from either side who seems to be able to manage to address the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment, instead of cherry-picking the final clause and turning it into a right with no responsibilities, or ignoring the final clause under the idea of "protect the people from themselves".
Seems to me that the amendment means Congress, etc, can't ban gun ownership, but that ALL OF YOU who want to keep and bear arms must submit yourselves to some basic training and organization, and must be willing to be called up and fight if the United States is attacked. Which is to say in short, what the amendment says in full is: you can have a gun, but you also need to be part of a well-regulated militia. Not a bunch of selfish pieces of shit claiming rights without responsibilities.
Not coincidentally, gun ownership is NOT a good control or fall-back in case the government starts oppressing the people. It was once, but not anymore. The technology of killing has gotten way too advanced for that-- citizens going up against modern military will die without accomplishing anything useful if the military is willing to carry out orders against the civilian population. True, if the population gets really persistent and obnoxious, a little ethnic cleansing/genocide/extermination campaign might be necessary, but modern armies have the capability to do that. Your real defense right now is that the military takes its oath to support and defend the constitution seriously, and that that obligation takes precedence over the duty to obey the president and all officers appointed over them-- if that ever fails, you're all fucked.
|
|
|
But Fox News said, cuz it’s Fox News all day every day in my house, Fox said the Prez doesn’t read.
How does he know what he signs??
|
|
|
Most mentally ill people do not commit acts of violence. Needs to be restated. It does not apply due to the fact that even one so called mentally ill person that commits such an act negates all 99% of those that do not. Unfortunately after all the mental drs. and all the studies done there is no way to accurately determine which person will commit such an act and all of us are too busy with our own lives to delve into the deep recesses of the minds of others other than that it is a guess.
So, here is another guess where and what is the desert called where rain has not come to in 70 years?
|
|
|
The 5th:
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Militia was the People themselves. They were not organized. They reacted to a call to arms in time of national emergency, they all had their muskets at the ready.
As for "well regulated." Well regulated today means lots of rules and restrctions -- i.e. regulations!
What did it mean then? Well regulated meant well equipped, with the best weapons and supplies available. Of course many of you think I am full of shit, but look it up. The language can always change...the meaning can't.
Just ask an Englishman from the last century if he'd like to suck on a fag. He'd likely say, "Of course!" Put a dick in his face and watch his reaction! For those of you born in the 90s and later, a "fag" is a name for a cigarette!
And BTW, the first half of the 2nd Amendment has no true meaning. The Founding Fathers were simply setting up the reason for the 2nd Amendment. A preface, so to speak:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
The actual statement of the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment is in Part 2:
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pretty clear stuff. Opponents want to make hay about the first half because it is a little vague in its language and has no real meaning or application.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Pretty fucking clear right there.
|
|
|
Oh, and 5th:
Rights without responsibilities. Tell me your responsibility here:
In the 1st Amendment, Free speech. You have it, what is your responsibility?
Free Exercise of Religion: Your responsibility?
Free Press? State your Responsibility, please.
Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure...Your responsibility?
Fifth Amendment: Self-incrimination. Your responsibility?
The Responsibility in the Constitution falls upon the Government. The Constitution protects We the People from having our rights trampled by the Government. It is their responsibility to follow the law and not overstep their bounds. They have done only a half way decent job of it through history, and but for the NRA, would have trampled that right to death years ago.
Citizens have no responsibility as a result of their Constitutional Rights. Get that fucking straight!
|
|
|
It's a compelling argument that the 2nd Amendment is a bulwark against tyranny, for some.
A cold, hard look at the facts suggests otherwise, however.
Fallouja's gunmen had everything that American gun rights people say confers protection from governmental tyranny: fully automatic assault rifles with large-capacity magazines. A motivated militia with radio communications with each other, acting in concert in their own well-known terrain. Besides assault rifles, they had rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPG's), crew-served automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, stash houses full of ammo, supportive locals, food, water and medical supplies.
Yet Fallouja proved that despite all that, their well-armed and motivated militia was unable to resist or ultimately defend against a well-coordinated U.S. military assault utilizing similar weaponry, air assets and competent command.
Fallouja essentially disproved the ideologies and justifications of that cohort of the population who believe that everyone should have the right to own military-style assault rifles as a last defense against governmental tyranny.
Me, I like 'em and have some, and they're a hoot to shoot. But I don't kid myself that owning such weapons is a star-spangled, patriotic last bastion of righteous resistance to federal over-reach.
|
|
|
The 2nd Amendment gives individual rights to possess a handgun for lawful purposes such as self defense within the home. Like most rights, the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited.
You can't own a weapon of mass destruction or a grenade launcher. Congress "CAN" make regulations as to what kind of "arms" an individual can own. Hence, "a well regulated militia" the first clause of the amendment.
However, congress can not "infringe upon the rights" to own a handgun, the 2nd clause of the amendment. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) made that 5-4 decision.
When it comes to gun regulations, we the people must choose wisely. Based on past history, we the people have chosen poorly.
Hence the definition of insanity...
|
| There are 17 comments on this blog. |
