Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

The original meaning of the second amendment was that, because private gun owners may be called on by their state for militia service, the federal government would neither take guns from people nor prevent people from taking their guns wherever they went. The presumption was that states had a free hand to restrict and regulate the keeping and bearing of arms as they saw fit, for that same militia organizing and regulating effort, and no federal oversight.

This all changes with the 14th amendment. With the 14th, now Federal courts have jurisdiction to decide when a state is allowed or not allowed to prevent a person from keeping or bearing guns, with the presumption being that all people have this right unless a state demonstrates a very strong reason why they should not. The federal government would have the same presumption and limitation.

It all hinges on what "due process of law" means. Any level of government can take a gun from somebody if due process of law is satisfied.

(06-03-2022, 04:31 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Biden said Congress should reinstate an assault weapons ban, raise the purchase age for firearms, and pass red flag gun laws

How dare he prevent 18 year old's from purchasing the necessary weapons to kill helpless school children.  This is the USA.  Americans like to kill people in large quantities so I only ask why we hasn't Congress lowered the legal age to 16 so the kids can drive down and purchase AR-15's once they pass their drivers exam.

(06-03-2022, 04:12 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 04:31 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Biden said Congress should reinstate an assault weapons ban, raise the purchase age for firearms, and pass red flag gun laws

How dare he prevent 18 year old's from purchasing the necessary weapons to kill helpless school children.  This is the USA.  Americans like to kill people in large quantities so I only ask why we hasn't Congress lowered the legal age to 16 so the kids can drive down and purchase AR-15's once they pass their drivers exam.

Oh, but its ok if they go die in a war... Lefties with their same tired arguments.

(06-03-2022, 04:23 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 04:12 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]How dare he prevent 18 year old's from purchasing the necessary weapons to kill helpless school children.  This is the USA.  Americans like to kill people in large quantities so I only ask why we hasn't Congress lowered the legal age to 16 so the kids can drive down and purchase AR-15's once they pass their drivers exam.

Oh, but its ok if they go die in a war... Lefties with their same tired arguments.

Actually not.  The Left is against wars for the most part so NO, it's not ok for 18 year old's to go to war, unless they volunteer for it of course.

(06-03-2022, 02:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The original meaning of the second amendment was that, because private gun owners may be called on by their state for militia service, the federal government would neither take guns from people nor prevent people from taking their guns wherever they went.  The presumption was that states had a free hand to restrict and regulate the keeping and bearing of arms as they saw fit, for that same militia organizing and regulating effort, and no federal oversight.

This all changes with the 14th amendment.  With the 14th, now Federal courts have jurisdiction to decide when a state is allowed or not allowed to prevent a person from keeping or bearing guns, with the presumption being that all people have this right unless a state demonstrates a very strong reason why they should not. The federal government would have the same presumption and limitation.

It all hinges on what "due process of law" means.  Any level of government can take a gun from somebody if due process of law is satisfied.

Stop trying to understand men that were vastly more intelligent and more experienced than you. Seriously.

NO where else in the Constitution do morons like you question the founding fathers - only the 2nd amendment and its clear COMMA that separates the individual from the militia.

(06-03-2022, 04:53 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 02:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The original meaning of the second amendment was that, because private gun owners may be called on by their state for militia service, the federal government would neither take guns from people nor prevent people from taking their guns wherever they went.  The presumption was that states had a free hand to restrict and regulate the keeping and bearing of arms as they saw fit, for that same militia organizing and regulating effort, and no federal oversight.

This all changes with the 14th amendment.  With the 14th, now Federal courts have jurisdiction to decide when a state is allowed or not allowed to prevent a person from keeping or bearing guns, with the presumption being that all people have this right unless a state demonstrates a very strong reason why they should not. The federal government would have the same presumption and limitation.

It all hinges on what "due process of law" means.  Any level of government can take a gun from somebody if due process of law is satisfied.

Stop trying to understand men that were vastly more intelligent and more experienced than you. Seriously.

NO where else in the Constitution do morons like you question the founding fathers - only the 2nd amendment and its clear COMMA that separates the individual from the militia.

Commas are for connecting related thoughts.  Periods are for separating things.

(06-03-2022, 04:30 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 04:23 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, but its ok if they go die in a war... Lefties with their same tired arguments.

Actually not.  The Left is against wars for the most part so NO, it's not ok for 18 year old's to go to war, unless they volunteer for it of course.

HAHAHA, what a joke. You lefties are for whatever it politically expedient. You lefties JUMPED at the chance to defend the Nazi's in the Ukraine and provide THEM with weapons. Lefties don't know what the hell they are for. Seriously, the left has become a walking punchline.

(06-03-2022, 04:58 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 04:30 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Actually not.  The Left is against wars for the most part so NO, it's not ok for 18 year old's to go to war, unless they volunteer for it of course.

HAHAHA, what a joke. You lefties are for whatever it politically expedient. You lefties JUMPED at the chance to defend the Nazi's in the Ukraine and provide THEM with weapons. Lefties don't know what the hell they are for. Seriously, the left has become a walking punchline.

You just called Ukrainian patriots Nazis but we're the punchline.  What a strange world you live in.

(06-03-2022, 04:31 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Biden says Second Amendment is 'not absolute' ....

Neither is Biden. 2024 looms....

18 year old are not old enough to own a gun, but a 7 year old is old enough to choose its sex…

You can’t make this stuff up…

(06-03-2022, 08:02 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]18 year old are not old enough to own a gun, but a 7 year old is old enough to choose its sex…

You can’t make this stuff up…

Sure you can.. Just need a mentally ill mind.

(06-03-2022, 04:58 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 04:30 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Actually not.  The Left is against wars for the most part so NO, it's not ok for 18 year old's to go to war, unless they volunteer for it of course.

HAHAHA, what a joke. You lefties are for whatever it politically expedient. You lefties JUMPED at the chance to defend the Nazi's in the Ukraine and provide THEM with weapons. Lefties don't know what the hell they are for. Seriously, the left has become a walking punchline.

Is that right Alex Jones?

(06-04-2022, 04:56 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-03-2022, 04:58 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]HAHAHA, what a joke. You lefties are for whatever it politically expedient. You lefties JUMPED at the chance to defend the Nazi's in the Ukraine and provide THEM with weapons. Lefties don't know what the hell they are for. Seriously, the left has become a walking punchline.

Is that right Alex Jones?

That’s the response I expected. Deflect & project, classic…

Well, actually, the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Almost all of us, including the Supreme Court, do draw the line somewhere.

An “assault rifle” ban would have been extremely unlikely to have changed the Uvalde outcome for the better. Being in close and enclosed quarters as he was, he could have likely caused as much if not more carnage with 2 or more semi auto handguns and a bunch of pre-loaded magazines. And I think it’s pretty safe to assume that he would have still carried out his plan and done it that way had he not had access to an AR-15 or similar. He would’ve had greater freedom of movement and even less likelihood of being halted by a jam with the 2 or more handguns.

In a scenario where AR-15’s are taken away (these do not meet the definition of assault rifle fwiw), the next school shooting will take place similarly as outlined above and the left being emboldened by the removal of AR-15s will come for the hand guns once enough school shootings are perpetrated in such a way.

The answer here is not what the left proposes, but rather to either declare schools no longer to be gun free zones or if they are to remain gun free zones, an armed and secure perimeter needs to be erected around them (seems a rather daunting task to me). Anything other than these two scenarios are just “feel good” solutions that do nothing to help mitigate the total damage and frequency of occurrences or they create entirely new and probably worse problems.

Clearly no viable solution can completely eliminate the possibility of another such event, but moving the age of purchase for AR-15s from 18 to 21 by itself only serves to make those in favor feel better and accomplishes very little if anything at all.

(06-03-2022, 05:17 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

I guess you don't see the irony of your signature in this discussion.

(06-05-2022, 01:04 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]An “assault rifle” ban would have been extremely unlikely to have changed the Uvalde outcome for the better.  Being in close and enclosed quarters as he was, he could have likely caused as much if not more carnage with 2 or more semi auto handguns and a bunch of pre-loaded magazines.  And I think it’s pretty safe to assume that he would have still carried out his plan and done it that way had he not had access to an AR-15 or similar.  He would’ve had greater freedom of movement and even less likelihood of being halted by a jam with the 2 or more handguns.

In a scenario where AR-15’s are taken away (these do not meet the definition of assault rifle fwiw), the next school shooting will take place similarly as outlined above and the left being emboldened by the removal of AR-15s will come for the hand guns once enough school shootings are perpetrated in such a way.

The answer here is not what the left proposes, but rather to either declare schools no longer to be gun free zones or if they are to remain gun free zones, an armed and secure perimeter needs to be erected around them (seems a rather daunting task to me).  Anything other than these two scenarios are just “feel good” solutions that do nothing to help mitigate the total damage and frequency of occurrences or they create entirely new and probably worse problems.

Clearly no viable solution can completely eliminate the possibility of another such event, but moving the age of purchase for AR-15s from 18 to 21 by itself only serves to make those in favor feel better and accomplishes very little if anything at all.

The Uvalde shooter was under 21.  Moving the age would have helped in this one case.  Also with the Parkland case.

(06-05-2022, 07:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-05-2022, 01:04 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]An “assault rifle” ban would have been extremely unlikely to have changed the Uvalde outcome for the better.  Being in close and enclosed quarters as he was, he could have likely caused as much if not more carnage with 2 or more semi auto handguns and a bunch of pre-loaded magazines.  And I think it’s pretty safe to assume that he would have still carried out his plan and done it that way had he not had access to an AR-15 or similar.  He would’ve had greater freedom of movement and even less likelihood of being halted by a jam with the 2 or more handguns.

In a scenario where AR-15’s are taken away (these do not meet the definition of assault rifle fwiw), the next school shooting will take place similarly as outlined above and the left being emboldened by the removal of AR-15s will come for the hand guns once enough school shootings are perpetrated in such a way.

The answer here is not what the left proposes, but rather to either declare schools no longer to be gun free zones or if they are to remain gun free zones, an armed and secure perimeter needs to be erected around them (seems a rather daunting task to me).  Anything other than these two scenarios are just “feel good” solutions that do nothing to help mitigate the total damage and frequency of occurrences or they create entirely new and probably worse problems.

Clearly no viable solution can completely eliminate the possibility of another such event, but moving the age of purchase for AR-15s from 18 to 21 by itself only serves to make those in favor feel better and accomplishes very little if anything at all.

The Uvalde shooter was under 21.  Moving the age would have helped in this one case.  Also with the Parkland case.

I'm aware.  I don't think you read my whole post by the look of things.