18 plus dead in walmart/mall shooting in elpaso

[shooter444]

[highlight=yellow]I dont want it to seem like an attack but I am not sure where you are getting a clear precise constitutional definition on what TYPES of weapons or accessories are protected. [/highlight]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is protected by the Constitution 2nd Amendment,... NOT ACCESSORIES!!!

There are no statements in the Bill of Rights that specifically protects customizing a weapon with a silencer, flowered tie dye, bump stocks, or, pink panties,... those are personal choices,... NOT HUMAN RIGHTS!!!

I do not want to see a 2nd Amendment political battle,... because of an ACCESSORY!!!

 

[shooter444]

double tap

 

[Boriqua]

The Second Amendment is not about personal self defense, any more than it is about hunting or target shooting. Those things are included incidentally, just like topless dancing and purple Mohawk hairdos are protected by the First Amendment.

The "core" purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable the People to shoot American soldiers and American police officers when the government uses them as instruments of tyranny. This is an uncomfortable truth, unpopular (and frightening) for a demographic (gun owners) who are the strongest supporters of military and police. Yes we support our troops and our police, but if their boss ever orders them to round up Jews and put them on trains, or round up American citizens whose grandparents were born in Japan, or round up homosexuals or fugitive slaves or NRA members, then the founders wanted us to have the means to shoot them. With our privately owned weapons

That was very much my understanding as well. To that end any accessory that could conceivably be used to fight off a tyrannical government is in.

One man's accessory is another man's need. I will reiterate. Punish in any way you see fit people who commit crimes with weapons or without regardless of accessories as banning not only is an infringement on my right as an adult human but ineffective.

Edited to add:
The very guns they want to ban are the ones I believe were closest to the intention of the founders. Assault or military weapons.

 

[shooter444]

I believe,... one would have to be very near sighted and self indulgent to think that an accessory is a Creator Endowed Inalienable Natural Human Right,... just because you want one without infringement.

Where would it end? Crazy self indulgent people are now allowed to choose their preferred gender, regardless of biology! Allowing the redefining of FIREARMS to the politically demented, or the self indulgent, is insanity, imo. Anyone claiming that a accessory is protected by the 2nd Amendment has his head up his arse!

Redefining the 2nd Amendment to include ones personal preference for pink suppressor panty accessories, is idiotic and dangerous.

If my great, great, great, great grandfather was told that his bayonet was going to be defined as a non firearm,... I am sure he would have looked at his musket's bore, laughed in the face of the idiot wanting the bayonet and say, take the knife, I'll give you another part of my musket later.

When idiots want to whine like little girls about having their favorite accessory taken from them, claiming protections under the 2nd Amendment,... reminds me of the twisted thinking the left has, when claiming magazines are not protected as a Right,... aka firearm.

Ya'll want to redefine the definition of a firearm to include your favorite attachment,... fine,... just don't whine like little girls when the Deep State Demonscats with more power than you, do the same by redefining what they think a firearm is!!!

Lastly,... I don't care what slippery slope someone wants to skin their ass on,... I just don't want to see the rest of the Nation lose protection of our Bill of Rights, as well.

 

[QuietM4]

As for 'silencers',... I see no issue with regulating non defensive tools, that do not fall under the protection of our Constitution's 2nd Amendment,... actually, I could not care less about them.

Please point out in the 1st Amendment where it specifically allows free speech on the Internet.

 

[smithers599]

I believe,... one would have to be very near sighted and self indulgent to think that an accessory is a Creator Endowed Inalienable Natural Human Right,... just because you want one without infringement.

That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before?
Oh, yeah:
"I believe one would have to be very near sighted and self indulgent to think that a fully semi-automatic assault weapon with 30-caliber clip and Teflon-coated cop-killer armor-piercing hollow point ammunition and shoulder thing that goes up is a Creator Endowed Inalienable Natural Human Right, just because you want one without infringement."

I believe that accessories ("high-capacity assault clips," "sniper scopes," flash suppressors, pistol grips, silencers, etc.) are included in the definition of "arms" that the People have the Creator-Endowed Inalienable Natural Human Right to keep and bear.

You disagree. Fine. Try to disagree without being disagreeable. Belay the name-calling. Consider the possibility that not everybody who disagrees with you is an "idiot."

 

[shooter444]

Please point out in the 1st Amendment where it specifically allows free speech on the Internet.

Well, first of all,... the 1st Amendment, aka...the Bill of Rights, does NOT ALLOW ANYTHING!

The Bill of Rights was placed in the US Constitution TO PREVENT,... NOT ALLOW,...[highlight=yellow]TO PREVENT[/highlight] THE INFRINGEMENT BY A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT UPON OUR CREATOR ENDOWED INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS!!!

So, you see, your premise that the 1st Amendment should'a, would'a, could'a, allow free speech on the Internet, or, not on the Internet, or, anywhere else on earth,... is completely flawed from the git'go!!!

Simply put,... your attempt to define and marginalize where the 1st Amendment has, or has not, confined FREE SPEECH to,... is ludicrous, since no such place exists,... period.

First Amendment of the US Constitution,...

"[highlight=yellow]Congress shall make no law [/highlight]respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or [highlight=yellow]abridging the freedom of speech[/highlight], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sooo,... I ask you,... from the direct quote of the 1st Amendment above,... do you read anything that could possibly be considered a restriction, or, an allowance of [highlight=yellow]FREE[/highlight] SPEECH???

[highlight=yellow]free
/frē/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
"I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free"
2.
not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
"the researchers set the birds free"
synonyms: on the loose, at liberty, at large;
adverb
1.
without cost or payment.
"ladies were admitted free"
synonyms: without charge, free of charge, for nothing, complimentary, gratis, gratuitous, at no cost; [/highlight]

 

[delta6]

I believe,... one would have to be very near sighted and self indulgent to think that an accessory is a Creator Endowed Inalienable Natural Human Right,... just because you want one without infringement.

That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before?
Oh, yeah:
"I believe one would have to be very near sighted and self indulgent to think that a fully semi-automatic assault weapon with 30-caliber clip and Teflon-coated cop-killer armor-piercing hollow point ammunition and shoulder thing that goes up is a Creator Endowed Inalienable Natural Human Right, just because you want one without infringement."

I believe that accessories ("high-capacity assault clips," "sniper scopes," flash suppressors, pistol grips, silencers, etc.) are included in the definition of "arms" that the People have the Creator-Endowed Inalienable Natural Human Right to keep and bear.

You disagree. Fine. Try to disagree without being disagreeable. Belay the name-calling. Consider the possibility that not everybody who disagrees with you is an "idiot."

+1......

 

[QuietM4]

The Bill of rights is Amendments 1-10, not just the first.

You say Freedom of Speech isn’t confined to just speaking, but to all forms of speech (I agree). So, why do you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to rifles/pistols and not suppressors or magazines?

The Constitution and it’s Amendments were meant to grow and evolve as the country does...new inventions never imagined by the founding fathers are understood to be part of the 1st Amendment, e.g. the Internet.

Why should the 2nd not evolve to allow modern firearms and accessories?

 

[shooter444]

The Bill of rights is Amendments 1-10, not just the first.

[highlight=yellow]The above is so obvious and I won't address the absurdity that is written.[/highlight]

You say Freedom of Speech isn’t confined to just speaking, but to all forms of speech (I agree). So, why do you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to rifles/pistols and not suppressors or magazines?

[highlight=yellow]NO,... I didn't say anything of the kind,... the US Constitution says FREE SPEECH is NOT TO BE INFRINGED UPON BY CONGRESS,... annnd,...the 2nd Amendment does not apply to rifles/pistols/suppressors/magazines,...IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE RESTRICTIONS IT PLACES UPON THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.[/highlight]

The Constitution and it’s Amendments were meant to grow and evolve as the country does...new inventions never imagined by the founding fathers are understood to be part of the 1st Amendment, e.g. the Internet.

[highlight=yellow]Ohh,... Really,... and just where is this stated as Constitutional Law?[/highlight]

Why should the 2nd not evolve to allow modern firearms and accessories?

[highlight=yellow]Hmmm, if this is suppose to be a trick question,... you failed. The 2nd Amendment isn't meant to allow ANY FIREARMS OR ACCESSORIES TO EVOLVE, as stated above,... the 2nd Amendment is the declaration of the founding fathers via the Constitution to the newly formed centralized Federal Government to NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,... PERIOD!!! Which has nothing to do with ancient or modern firearms,...evolving, or not,... I thought you would have gotten that, in my last post.[/highlight]

"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."
[/quote]

 

[Doc Holliday]

What are we up to, 20,000 gun laws on the books already?

I would say that's a whole lot of infringement going on...sad but true...

 

[shooter444]

What are we up to, 20,000 gun laws on the books already?

I would say that's a whole lot of infringement going on...sad but true...

Agreed, and, I believe there are more than 20,000!

But, the Constitution can not be held responsible for the corrupt men and women placed in positions of power who refuse to read and obey. The constitution is not flawed,... the public servants who circumvent it,... are!

 

[Tim McBride]

Ugh, do I need to give a lesson on the US Consitution, it's selective incorporation under the 14th to apply to the states, and the legal meaning of arms?

 

[Boriqua]

Ugh, do I need to give a lesson on the US Consitution, it's selective incorporation under the 14th to apply to the states, and the legal meaning of arms?

I don't know that I need a lesson but I am always eager for new input, insights and information that I might not be aware of or that I might want to consider.

Here is a good read, if long, for anyone looking at interpretation of arms. No where are "accessories" and their legality mentioned.

Good Read I think

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

The shame of it is though that this is a societal issue ... one in which we created and continue to nurture and not a tool issue. We can reverse this .. if anyone gave a shit enough about all Americans and not ones that agree solely with their political view and no .. the answer Isnt confiscation.

No Dem gives a shit about people being murdered .. Gun control is just a blunt tool to keep beating at the right with.

 

[Tim McBride]

If my great, great, great, great grandfather was told that his bayonet was going to be defined as a non firearm,... I am sure he would have looked at his musket's bore, laughed in the face of the idiot wanting the bayonet and say, take the knife, I'll give you another part of my musket later.

Bayonets are "arms", and were considered an integral part of a soldiers kit in 1783. Along with things like powder, ball, flint, etc...

You are taking an insanely narrow view on the word arms, that is both historically and legally incorrect.

 

[Tim McBride]

[highlight=yellow]NO,... I didn't say anything of the kind,... the US Constitution says FREE SPEECH is NOT TO BE INFRINGED UPON BY CONGRESS,... annnd,...the 2nd Amendment does not apply to rifles/pistols/suppressors/magazines,...IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE RESTRICTIONS IT PLACES UPON THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.[/highlight]

[highlight=yellow]Hmmm, if this is suppose to be a trick question,... you failed. The 2nd Amendment isn't meant to allow ANY FIREARMS OR ACCESSORIES TO EVOLVE, as stated above,... the 2nd Amendment is the declaration of the founding fathers via the Constitution to the newly formed centralized Federal Government to NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,... PERIOD!!! Which has nothing to do with ancient or modern firearms,...evolving, or not,... I thought you would have gotten that, in my last post.[/highlight]

The Second Amendment in a post McDonald v. Chicago legal landscape applies to the actions of the Federal and State Governments.

Again, you have a narrow viewpoint on what is defined as by "Arms", a viewpoint that is more in alignment with the enemies of freedom than it's allies.

 

[Tim McBride]

Ugh, do I need to give a lesson on the US Consitution, it's selective incorporation under the 14th to apply to the states, and the legal meaning of arms?

I don't know that I need a lesson but I am always eager for new input, insights and information that I might not be aware of or that I might want to consider.

Here is a good read, if long, for anyone looking at interpretation of arms. No where are "accessories" and their legality mentioned.

Good Read I think

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

The shame of it is though that this is a societal issue ... one in which we created and continue to nurture and not a tool issue. We can reverse this .. if anyone gave a shit enough about all Americans and not ones that agree solely with their political view and no .. the answer Isnt confiscation.

No Dem gives a shit about people being murdered .. Gun control is just a blunt tool to keep beating at the right with.

That is a quality legal opinion on what is defined as arms.

 

[Tim McBride]

What are we up to, 20,000 gun laws on the books already?

I would say that's a whole lot of infringement going on...sad but true...

Agreed, and, I believe there are more than 20,000!

But, the Constitution can not be held responsible for the corrupt men and women placed in positions of power who refuse to read and obey. The constitution is not flawed,... the public servants who circumvent it,... are!

The Constitution is a document created out of a compromise to keep the colonies together. It has several flaws, many that have been exploited by the enemies of freedom to give the Federal Government an unprecedented level of power.

 

[smithers599]

Heroic Customs/Border Patrol Agent:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/walmart-shooting-shoppers-prayed-and-begged-a-gunman-not-to-kill-them-survivor-says/ar-AAFt6OD

Back at the auto department, Grant burst through a set of doors and found US Customs and Border Protection Agent Donna Sifford.
"There's a shooter inside!" he yelled.
Sifford had left her firearm at home. Along with two Walmart employees, she helped put Grant into the bed of a truck and the driver rushed him to the hospital.

Well you stupid b****.

 

[shooter444]

NO,... I didn't say anything of the kind,... the US Constitution says FREE SPEECH is NOT TO BE INFRINGED UPON BY CONGRESS,... annnd,...the 2nd Amendment does not apply to rifles/pistols/suppressors/magazines,...IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE RESTRICTIONS IT PLACES UPON THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Hmmm, if this is suppose to be a trick question,... you failed. The 2nd Amendment isn't meant to allow ANY FIREARMS OR ACCESSORIES TO EVOLVE, as stated above,... the 2nd Amendment is the declaration of the founding fathers via the Constitution to the newly formed centralized Federal Government to NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,... PERIOD!!! Which has nothing to do with ancient or modern firearms,...evolving, or not,... I thought you would have gotten that, in my last post.


____________________________________________________________
[highlight=yellow]Tim McBride wrote:,...[/highlight]
The Second Amendment in a post McDonald v. Chicago legal landscape applies to the actions of the Federal and State Governments.

[highlight=yellow]Again, you have a narrow viewpoint on what is defined as by "Arms", a viewpoint that is more in alignment with the enemies of freedom than it's allies.[/highlight]
__________________________________________________________________


No, I do not! The US Constitution Bill of Rights has the narrow point of view! Its legal point of view is that the Bill of Rights are, in actuality, legislated notices to the newly formed Centralized Government to NOT infringe on our creator endowed unalienable human rights,... PERIOD!

It is the enemies of freedom, with the mindset claiming the 2nd Amendment is a living, breathing, evolving document that can be dissected and redefined into what ever kind of ARMS the 2nd Amendment can protect, or can't protect,...which allies with our enemies. That's how we got into the problem we now have, like, our enemies claiming the 2nd Amendment only protects from infringement, sporting ARMS!

And, on, and on, it goes from there!

Why, because it is our enemies that can not accept the FACT that the Bill of Rights are warnings to the Government against tyrannical infringements,... NOT definitions of our RIGHTS that they would like them to be!

Some think because the word "BILL" has been used for so long, that the Bill of Rights is a some sort of list, of our Creator Endowed Unalienable Human Rights,... like a "BILL" of goods, or, a "BILL" of sale. Nothing is further from the truth! The word "BILL" in the Bill of Rights is merely a legislative term, such as used when any "BILL" is submitted to Congress for ratification, today. The First Federal Congress of the United States actually presented 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights to the states, of which, 2 were rejected, leaving us with the 10 we now have.

As I have tried to relate, the Bill of Rights is ONLY a LEGAL warning to the new Government against acts of infringement,... it was never intended to enumerate all of our Human Rights!

Furthermore,... my viewpoint of what the word "ARMS" means, whether narrow, or not, is irrelevant to the subject at hand! The 2nd Amendment expresses no view on the definition of "ARMS", because,... it has nothing to do with "ARMS", other than to protect the Right to Keep and Bear them, from Government infringement!!!