What law()s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by TOG 6, May 16, 2022.

  1. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, cripes, go take a civics class. And while you're at it, remedial English is probably a good idea, too, so they can teach you how to structure together sentences longer than three words.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  2. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,138
    Likes Received:
    7,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you are unaware that law's can be changed. Got it.
     
  3. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't prove anything. You just used incoherent rants about why you thought it was wrong.

    The U.S. Supreme Court held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and
    to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

    The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban.

    A majority of the members of Congress signed a brief authored by Stephen Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.

    A majority of the states signed a brief of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, advising that the case be affirmed;

    A collection of organizations and prominent scholars, represented by attorney Jeffrey Teichert, submitted an "errors brief" arguing that many of the common historical and factual "myths and misrepresentations" generally offered in favor of banning handguns were in error. Teichert's brief argued from a historical perspective that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    Maybe a bit more of that research for the validity of your argument is needed
     
    Joe knows likes this.
  4. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    7,870
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 2nd Amendment. The shooter traveled 200 miles to a place that was target rich and lacked resistance thanks to NY's strict gun laws. The likelihood of a person owning a firearm capable of stopping him was close to nil. He stated as much.
     
  5. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,878
    Likes Received:
    17,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We can build a time machine and make tucker Carlson’s dad use a condom since according to liberals the shooting is his fault
     
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He doesn't know... He only knows the buzzwords that the media makes use of...
     
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What does "infringe" mean to you?
     
  8. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,138
    Likes Received:
    7,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That rights are STILL not unlimited. And will NEVER BE UNLIMITED.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
  9. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    so as long as they're killed in a manner that's more acceptable to you that's fine?
     
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "right" to own weapons is protected by a Supreme Court Decision. NOT by the Constitution as written. Which I have already proven in the Guns forum (as you very well know, but will deny for eternity... so don't bother). First thing that needs to be done is overturn this insane legislation passed by the Supreme Court. After that, if we are to err, we must err on the side of saving lives.

    You can now respond with your typical "No you didn't" (or similar), or you can go to the guns forum and debate my arguments with facts. My point is made in the course of 4 threads, but this one (http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/) debunks most of the myths. Bets are 10 to 1 that you will do the former.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
  11. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's 300 million guns in the US, the owners clearly have more good intentions than you. sorry you cannot seem to grasp that, but keep on not owning any guns it seems we're safer that way as a whole. it's best when gun owners are clear and logical thinkers.
     
  12. Overitall

    Overitall Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2021
    Messages:
    12,181
    Likes Received:
    11,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The role of the SC is to interpret the laws of the United States according to the Constitution. So, yes, the SC is protecting the right to own weapons because it's how they interpreted the Constitution. It sucks whenever the Justices don't agree with your interpretation, doesn't it.
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't debunk it. But the philologists, linguists and historians I cited in the "Gun Control" forum not only CAN but DID. Four posts titled "English 101..." "English 102...", "History 101..." and "History 102..."

    Scalia's opinion may be based on Tench Coxe's writtings, but the 2nd Amendment isn't. The one that starts with "History 101..." and "History 102" are particularly illuminating about that. But the "English 101..." and "English 102..." show that Scalia had no interest in facts. Only in justifying his pre-made decision.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
  14. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    13,465
    Likes Received:
    9,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So the current people you sited believe they know the original intent better than a an elected official, law graduate, that was living at the time of ratification? So what was there thoughts on Tench Coxe’s writings? Or did they conveniently skip his writings like most books I have read that claims what you are claiming.
     
  15. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't say? What a revelation!

    BTW, I am willing to take a bet that many of those who are dumb enough to be white supremacist terrorists, are too dumb to understand how to use a 3D Printer.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The 2nd Amendment is unlimited. Read it sometime.
     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I understand that this is your fervent desire, but that is not what the 2nd Amendment says in plain text. Where in the 2nd Amendment are there any limitations listed?

    "shall not be infringed" means precisely the opposite of what you are claiming...
     
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the hell do YOU know about my intentions?

    What we need on this forum is more on the right who are capable of holding a serious and (preferably) intelligent debate. We are running out!
     
  19. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not as much as it sucks when they don't agree with REALITY. Especially when the end result turns out to be that more innocent people DIE.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
  20. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a superficial response. The "elected official" you mention expresses HIS opinion. But it's the opinion of the majority that PASSED the Amendment that counts.

    This idea that the 2nd Amendment is the result of the opinion of ONE arbitrary person is a empty as it looks. It was passed as a result of MANY differing opinions. Until a combination of them prevailed. And if you want to know what those are, you would read the post I mentioned. But I would discourage you do that unless you are mentally prepared to get the dogma you have been listening to for years completely obliterated.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
  21. Overitall

    Overitall Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2021
    Messages:
    12,181
    Likes Received:
    11,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At least they don't have the authority to declare wars sending thousands of our citizens to an early grave.
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Most likely"
    What a superficial response.
    "Most likely" does not demonstrate a necessary relationship.
    Thus:
    You are unable to demonstrate the necessary relationship the between the gun laws you cite and the effect on violence you claim.
    As always.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know your statement, above, is false.
    Your unsound and admittedly irrelevant opinion proves nothing.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know your statement, above, is false.
     
  25. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't they? With this partisan majority we have now, I wouldn't discard anything.
     

Share This Page