Mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando Florida: Political Discussion [SPLIT]

[TX-Beau]

Legal and constitutional are not the same thing.

The Constitution says that only what is specifically granted to Congress is legitimate. There is no power over arms of any kind granted to Congress.

All the insisting by liberals that regulating arms is legitimate merely serves to show that those so claiming despise the Constitution.

As constitutional scholar J. Turley has pointed out, the current liberal administration is the very thing the Constitution was supposed to prevent. It's sad that it took a corrupt executive to wake such a scholar up; it has been evident for a long time that elitist politicians despise the Constitution any time it stands between them and control. This is why it is so commonly said that gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. It took years of seeing how liberals trample the Constitution to support gun control for me to accept how true that is.

Law is being used to trample the Constitution -- and you're supporting the tramplers.

I'm sorry for you if actual law in this country upsets your puritanical imaginings, but there is law, and there is precedent, and regulation is an established fact.

YOU are not the decider, and on that note, I'm going to bed.

 

[Kulindahr]

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

If you don't want to be known as someone who resorts to lying, answer the question.

I've answered.

BTW, accusations of lying from someone who can't tell the truth about my position as it has been clearly expressed in this forum are a joke.

Please cite the Constitutional authority for regulating firearms. It will have to specifically make an exception to "shall not be infringed".

 

[TX-Beau]

Why don't you just tell us what you've discovered through your own personal research? Or is that a secret?

Tell me, can you buy a tank? Kuli himself has said you can't buy an assault rifle, is that not regulation?

Being spiteful is not an argument against something so incredibly obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

Or are you saying that the reality we routinely regulate is some kind of obscure fact?

 

[Kulindahr]

IS REGULATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL OR NOT?

There is law in this United States, WHAT IS IT?

The law in the United States is the Constitution. The only laws which are legitimate are those which conform to it; the only ones which conform to it are those which can be shown to derive directly from authority granted in that Constitution, since that's what the Constitution itself says.

Where does the Constitution bestow the authority to regulate arms?

 

[TX-Beau]

I've answered.

BTW, accusations of lying from someone who can't tell the truth about my position as it has been clearly expressed in this forum are a joke.

Please cite the Constitutional authority for regulating firearms. It will have to specifically make an exception to "shall not be infringed".

No you haven't you pretended to answer. And there I really do have to leave it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry for you if actual law in this country upsets your puritanical imaginings, but there is law, and there is precedent, and regulation is an established fact.

YOU are not the decider, and on that note, I'm going to bed.

The people are "the decider". That's the point of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has been betraying its responsibility to uphold the Constitution against Congress and the President. Now, under the concept on which this country was founded, do you know what the proper remedy is?

A good Democrat should know, since the claimed founder of the party insisted on it.

 

[opinterph]

Being spiteful is not an argument against something so incredibly obvious.

Does that explain your multiple posts?

 

[Kulindahr]

Tell me, can you buy a tank? Kuli himself has said you can't buy an assault rifle, is that not regulation?

Being spiteful is not an argument against something so incredibly obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

Or are you saying that the reality we routinely regulate is some kind of obscure fact?

You can't buy an assault rifle because the government won't let you -- that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the prohibition.

Under Miller, assault rifles are plainly items that citizens should not merely be able to own but to transport across state lines. The question is how, under the only authority given Congress for addressing that matter, to deal with that fact. "Shall not be infringed" excludes any sort of regulation concerning what kind of weapons Americans can own -- so we have to turn to the authority the Constitution does give Congress, which is in Article I.

 

[Kabluey]

The right to insurrection has been affirmed by SCOTUS.

And no, it isn't delusional thinking -- you're assuming that governors would not call out the national guard to oppose the U.S. federal military which is likely in many states, and that American military would actually fire on American citizens...

So following your logic in the above,
If American citizens would never be fired on by the military, why would they need guns?

 

[Benvolio]

You can't buy an assault rifle because the government won't let you -- that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the prohibition.

Under Miller, assault rifles are plainly items that citizens should not merely be able to own but to transport across state lines. The question is how, under the only authority given Congress for addressing that matter, to deal with that fact. "Shall not be infringed" excludes any sort of regulation concerning what kind of weapons Americans can own -- so we have to turn to the authority the Constitution does give Congress, which is in Article I.

How will you vote, Kulindahr? You must know that a Hillary will appoint a 5 liberal to the USSC, who will drastically rewrite the 2d Amendment.

 

[Kabluey]

How will you vote, Kulindahr? You must know that a Hillary will appoint a 5 liberal to the USSC, who will drastically rewrite the 2d Amendment.

And Trump will give everyone reason to have guns.
Incompetent leadership helps turn anything into Yugoslavia.

 

[rareboy]

And Trump will give everyone reason to have guns.
Incompetent leadership helps turn anything into Yugoslavia.

Pretty much this. By the end of a Trump presidency, with the Republic in tatters, the economy ruined, the country deeply divided and almost certainly at war, probably even I would be stocking up on ammo.

 

[Benvolio]

Pretty much this. By the end of a Trump presidency, with the Republic in tatters, the economy ruined, the country deeply divided and almost certainly at war, probably even I would be stocking up on ammo.

The US is already deeply divided and the democrats want more, millions and millions more. Divide and conquer. The Federal government is not now a functional democracy; the pres and supreme court rule by decree. The democrats want to pull the economy down, down, down to socialism. Your plan to buy ammo should be moved forward before, and hide your gun before the dems confiscate the guns of law abiding people.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The US is already deeply divided and the democrats want more, millions and millions more. Divide and conquer. The Federal government is not now a functional democracy; the pres and supreme court rule by decree. The democrats want to pull the economy down, down, down to socialism. Your plan to buy ammo should be moved forward before, and hide your gun before the dems confiscate the guns of law abiding people.

Divide and conquer is better characterized by someone taking away your pension, healthcare provisions and cutting your hours to 39 a week to justify doing so and then telling you the reason they had to is because of liberals, taxes and Mexicans.

And you eat it up. You're the willing lapdog for those interests.

 

[Benvolio]

Divide and conquer is better characterized by someone taking away your pension, healthcare provisions and cutting your hours to 39 a week to justify doing so and then telling you the reason they had to is because of liberals, taxes and Mexicans.

And you eat it up. You're the willing lapdog for those interests.

If you work more than 40 hours, the government will punish the employer; time and a half for overtime. Complain to the democrats. If the employer is reducing benefits, have new regulations made them more expensive?

 

[xbuzzerx]

If you work more than 40 hours, the government will punish the employer; time and a half for overtime. Complain to the democrats. If the employer is reducing benefits, have new regulations made them more expensive?

Oh if I had it my way all employers would have to contribute in a prorated fashion based on how many hours their employee works towards coverage of things like healthcare, workman's comp and similar benefits. So that someone working 40 hours a week, even if it was for 6 different employers, would be getting exactly the same benefits as someone working 40 hours a week for one employer.

So this little greasy pig coward hole of "I have to do this because the government PUNISHES me for employing people by expecting that I actually pay them" would no longer be a loophole.

That's precisely how it should work.

 

[Kulindahr]

So following your logic in the above,
If American citizens would never be fired on by the military, why would they need guns?

At present, because the government would happily hire mercenaries ("Contractors") to shoot innocent Americans; also because federal law enforcement agencies have already shown a great willingness to kill innocents (not to mention the police who regularly shoot first and figure out probable cause later).

 

[Kulindahr]

How will you vote, Kulindahr? You must know that a Hillary will appoint a 5 liberal to the USSC, who will drastically rewrite the 2d Amendment.

I don't know yet. I was going to vote for Gary Johnson until he got hooked with a veep candidate who is plainly not libertarian. Now there aren't any candidates who actually support the Constitution.

 

[Kulindahr]

And Trump will give everyone reason to have guns.
Incompetent leadership helps turn anything into Yugoslavia.

Pretty much this. By the end of a Trump presidency, with the Republic in tatters, the economy ruined, the country deeply divided and almost certainly at war, probably even I would be stocking up on ammo.

Oh, Trump will probably get glowing economic results, but do so by encouraging wage slavery.

The bigger reason gays should be stocking up on ammo is that under Trump there will be no opposition to those wanting to persecute others based on theocratic lust.

 

[Kulindahr]

The US is already deeply divided and the democrats want more, millions and millions more. Divide and conquer. The Federal government is not now a functional democracy; the pres and supreme court rule by decree. The democrats want to pull the economy down, down, down to socialism. Your plan to buy ammo should be moved forward before, and hide your gun before the dems confiscate the guns of law abiding people.

Oh, rubbish. The Democrats don't want "millions more"; there's no evidence for that at all. They do want a fair deal for those already here and contributing to the economy, which is a big issue all by itself.

Nor do they want to "pull the economy down"; that would harm the supply of big checks from the wealthy and corporations that keep them in office. If they actually did start pulling for all-out socialism, four-fifths of their campaign funds would dry up.