Biden says 'second amendment is not absolute' after Texas shooting

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  88 comments

By:   Brad Dress (The Hill)

Biden says 'second amendment is not absolute' after Texas shooting
President Biden on Wednesday called for more gun control after a mass shooting at a Texas elementary school left 19 children and two adults dead, arguing in a White House address that the "second amendment is not absolute." Biden asked "when in God's name will we do what needs to be done" about the "amount…

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



President Biden on Wednesday called for more gun control after a mass shooting at a Texas elementary school left 19 children and two adults dead, arguing in a White House address that the "second amendment is not absolute."

Biden asked "when in God's name will we do what needs to be done" about the "amount of carnage that goes on in this country," as he pushed for what he called "common sense" gun control laws in the wake of one of the nation's worst shootings.

"While they clearly will not prevent every tragedy, we know certain ones will have significant impact and have no negative impact on the Second Amendment," Biden said of gun control laws, according to a video shared by the Associated Press.

"The Second Amendment is not absolute. When it was passed you couldn't own a cannon, you couldn't own certain kinds of weapons. There's just always been limitations."

The president's comments drew intense criticism from conservatives and gun rights activists, who noted the Second Amendment's right to bear arms includes the words "shall not be infringed". One Florida senator earlier on Wednesday tweeted at Biden, "try to take our guns and you'll learn why the Second Amendment was written in the first place."

The shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde ignited a firestorm, coming just 10 days after a mass shooting at a supermarket store in Buffalo, New York. The 18-year-old Texas gunman purchased two AR-15-style rifles legally before opening fire at the elementary school.

Democrats in Congress renewed calls to pass major gun control legislation, such as an expanded background check bill stalled in the House and a federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Biden, who helped pass the federal assault weapons ban while he was a senator, on Wednesday said he was astonished that the gunman walked into a store and purchased "weapons of war designed and marketed to kill."

The president also appeared to call out gun rights lobbyist groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), which is set to hold a conference this week in Houston, around 300 miles from the scene of the shooting.

"Where's the backbone? Where's the courage to stand up to a very powerful lobby?" Biden asked. "We're here today for the same purpose to come together and say, 'Enough.'"

Tags Biden Gun control Joe Biden mass shooting second amendment Texas Uvelda

The Hill has removed its comment section, as there are many other forums for readers to participate in the conversation. We invite you to join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Even if I was totally against guns, I would have to admit that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. How does anybody who is the current president think otherwise?

There are three elements to these terrible incidents: 

1) the individual

2) the weapon

3) motive or mental health

Democrats only focus on the gun. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Seeing that Abbott slashed $211million from the Texas department that oversees mental health and is last out of 50 States for access to it, just maybe you would like to revisit your inane partisan driven list.

Pffft!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one month ago
just maybe you would like to revisit your inane partisan driven list.

What does point # 3 say?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

Your last line tries to shift the blame. Of late it is what you are all about: tossing squirrels into a Skinner Box.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1.2    one month ago

Shift the blame?  From whom?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.1.2    one month ago

Of late?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    one month ago

You ain't seen nothing yet ...

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago
From whom?

To whom!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.1.5    one month ago

Some folks never accept responsibility.  It's always someone else's fault.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1.6    one month ago

All that education...wasted!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

R.7f819967a0c3bfd0f6c6dd4a99552f18?rik=tySCBfWsB5zUNw&riu=http%3a%2f%2f1.bp.blogspot.com%2f-qij1boNNUG8%2fU44tM31eNkI%2fAAAAAAAABG4%2f40msJpB2gzk%2fs1600%2fBurger.jpg&ehk=ApRHgOgNds2na5S%2b0bUkwnMmJ%2by4NmMU7yx3LGwHTNg%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    one month ago

A conservative Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment is a fraud , and you think it can never be revisited? lol. 

The fact is the Heller decision was very controversial. It was not the power of argument, but the makeup of the court in 2008 that produced the Heller decision. 

Prior to 2008 there was no accepted legal rulings that affirmed an individual right to own guns.  That is appx 220 years of no individual gun ownership. Why is that? What changed in recent decades? The amendment never changed , the arbitrary interpretation of it by right wing judges changed. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    one month ago
A conservative Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment is a fraud ,

No,  he said that the gun lobby interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the fraud, by a special interest group.  He did not say that the 2nd Amendment itself was a fraud.  Can the Amendment be revisited?  Of course it can, the founding fathers even put in the process to revisit and change it.  Feel free to write to your congresscritters to get the ball rolling.

Prior to 2008 there was no accepted legal rulings that affirmed an individual right to own guns.  That is appx 220 years of no individual gun ownership.

Are you trying to say that all the people who "owned" guns prior to 2008 were in fact breaking the law?  Of is it more along the lines that left wing judges and left wing politicians attempted to block ownership by law-abiding people?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.2    one month ago
No,  he said that the gun lobby interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the fraud, by a special interest group.  He did not say that the 2nd Amendment itself was a fraud. 

He was talking about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment being put forward by NRA lobbyists , which according to Burger, claimed something in the amendment that just was not there.

If the individual right to own guns is so obvious in the 2nd amendment, why did almost no one in this country believe that was the case before 1980 or so when the NRA changed course and began to lobby for a new interpretation?  The NRA then and now is funded by gun manufacturers. 

Heller was an arbitrary decision, not an obvious one. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.2    one month ago
Are you trying to say that all the people who "owned" guns prior to 2008 were in fact breaking the law?  Of is it more along the lines that left wing judges and left wing politicians attempted to block ownership by law-abiding people?

The Supreme Court doesnt make laws, it upholds them or negates them. Yes we know individuals had guns prior to Heller. I assume that is because individual jurisdictions did not have laws preventing individual gun ownership. Things that are not illegal by law are presumed legal. 

What Heller did was make laws barring gun ownership unconstitutional. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.2.5  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.3    one month ago
He was talking about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment being put forward by NRA lobbyists , which according to Burger, claimed something in the amendment that just was not there.

Yes he was.   But your first statement was 

A conservative Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment is a fraud ,

You are the one in your very first sentence who stated that Burger said the 2nd Amendment is a fraud.  Fix your sentence and this no longer is an issue.

If the individual right to own guns is so obvious in the 2nd amendment, why did almost no one in this country believe that was the case before 1980 or so when the NRA changed course and began to lobby for a new interpretation?

And what else was happening during that time?  Local districts were putting hard restrictions on gun ownership, the only was a citizen can fight back against that is to take the local government to court.  They used the NRA money for the legal costs as the cost of suing the government (any from local thru state to fed) is rather expensive.  And the NRA was glad to take up the fight.

The NRA then and now is funded by gun manufacturers. 

Of course it is.  If you are running a private organization who are you going to look at for donations, the local quilters circle or an industry that has deep pockets?  I always felt the bitching about gun manufactures funding gun rights groups was stupid thinking.  Who do you think funds pharmaceutical lobby groups?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    one month ago
What Heller did was make laws barring gun ownership unconstitutional. 

No.   What Heller v DC did was show that banning all handguns from private ownership was unconstitutional because the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep suitable weapons at home for self-defense unconnected to militia service.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.5    one month ago

I'm not changing my words because you are being petty, sorry. 

If the second amendment grants individual ownership of guns, why was the country 220 years old before this was determined?  Why was Scalia the only one with the brains to figure this out? 

Prior to the NRA lobbyists coming along, everyone took it for granted that the second amendment referred to state run militia. Now we are supposed to take Scalias word for it that it means individual ownership?  That would be fine if his argument was not in dispute, but it is and always has been. Justice Stevens wrote a very highly regarded dissenting opinion in the Heller case. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.6    one month ago
No.   What Heller v DC did was show that banning all handguns from private ownership was unconstitutional because the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep suitable weapons at home for self-defense unconnected to militia service.

I understand that was the Heller decision. It is an arbitrary decision, not an obvious one. Because the language of the amendment is open to interpretation in the modern world, court decisions on the matter fall to which side has the most justices on the Court at the time of the decision. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.2.9  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.7    one month ago
I'm not changing my words because you are being petty, sorry. 

I'm being petty?  You're just fucking wrong.  Your sentence is clear, that you try to move the goalposts after to try to say he was talking about the interpretation as put forth by the NRA (which is in the MEME you posted) clearly shows that you can see your written sentence was wrong but you refuse to back down.  Go ahead, double down on stupid.  Everybody here can read your words and know the truth.

If the second amendment grants individual ownership of guns, why was the country 220 years old before this was determined?  Why was Scalia the only one with the brains to figure this out?  Prior to the NRA lobbyists coming along, everyone took it for granted that the second amendment referred to state run militia. Now we are supposed to take Scalias word for it that it means individual ownership?  That would be fine if his argument was not in dispute, but it is and always has been. Justice Stevens wrote a very highly regarded dissenting opinion in the Heller case. 

You are hiding behind an interpretation that it referred to state run militia,  there have been plenty of other interpretations that are different.  Doesn't matter.  Why did it start to become an issue, because around the same time states and cities were attempting to gain control of gun crime and as governments tend to do they went overboard in some areas.  And citizens in those areas took the only legal means they could.  The fact that there was dissenting opinion in the Heller case does not mean it was not adjudicated properly.  Show me any SCOTUS case that was unanimous. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.9    one month ago

The Heller case was decided arbitrarily. It is the law of the land now because there were 5 conservatives and 4 liberals on the court at the time, not because Scalia was obviously right about the meaning of the amendment. 

I'm only going to post part of this, to avoid deletion because an entire article was posted

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

By MICHAEL WALDMAN

 

May 19, 2014

Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is the author of   The Second Amendment: A Biography .

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when   District of Columbia v. Heller   struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.

***

The Second Amendment consists   of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

***

Cue the National Rifle Association.   We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.

What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.

The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in   support   of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.

Cut to 1977. Gun-group veterans still call the NRA’s annual meeting that year the “Revolt at Cincinnati.” After the organization’s leadership had decided to move its headquarters to Colorado, signaling a retreat from politics, more than a thousand angry rebels showed up at the annual convention. By four in the morning, the dissenters had voted out the organization’s leadership. Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power.

The NRA’s new leadership was dramatic, dogmatic and overtly ideological. For the first time, the organization formally embraced the idea that the sacred Second Amendment was at the heart of its concerns.

The gun lobby’s lurch rightward was part of a larger conservative backlash that took place across the Republican coalition in the 1970s. One after another, once-sleepy traditional organizations galvanized as conservative activists wrested control.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.2.11  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.10    one month ago

His is one opinion, there are others that differ.  What matters is what SCOTUS does, both now and in the future.  At least until Congress works to change (amend) the 2nd Amendment (if they can).

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.10    one month ago

No point in reading further when the author stoops to describing Berger as a “rock ribbed conservative.” Berger was famous for being anything but rock robbed, afraid of criticism or taking a stand.

It’s like calling   sotomayor a measured moderate. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.2.13  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.12    one month ago

What can you expect from the White House Director of Speechwriting for Bill Clinton.  Of course it's going to be biased..  

My only complaint with that is when people are quick to point out the bias in the "other" party but ignore it from members of their own.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    one month ago

There are more issues here than guns.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    one month ago

Guns, guns guns. Only the left of the democrat party drinks the Kool-Aide.

Who was it that gave the mentally insane the fucking right to roam among us???

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.13    one month ago
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Civics Lesson: Notable Second Amendment Supreme Court Cases

History-of-Gun-Law-SCOTUS-Decisions-150x150.png
1791 – Second Amendment Ratified
-
1875 – United States vs. Cruikshank:   Post-Civil War decision overturning conviction of KKK members violently depriving freed slaves First and Second Amendment rights. The court decided that state courts were the proper arbiters of justice, and dismissed the case. 
-
1868 – Presser vs. Illinois:   Post-Civil War decision establishing that while individuals have a right to bear arms to ultimately be called upon as an organized militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to organize localized independent military organizations, drilling and parading.

1939 – United States vs. Miller:   Affirmed that the right to bear arms did not extend beyond service to a well-regulated militia.

2008 – District of Columbia vs. Heller:   Established the right of individuals to poses firearms unconnected to militia service, reversing precedents set by Miller

Gun Rights: Before and After Heller - Civics Nation

The 2nd amendment text hadnt changed , the court had. You had Scalia, a far right justice determined to leave his mark on the Court.  He created a "right" to individual ownership of guns that was not the original intention of the 2nd amendment. 

Now you all try to act like it was obvious all along. LOL. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    one month ago

That's fine John, but you forgot about the absolutely insane 18 year old who pulled the trigger.

What do we do with them?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    one month ago

You're the one who seeded an article about the second amendment here. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    one month ago

Typical that you site a far left activist group for your analysis. Guess who funds “civics nation?”

For an analysis of the supreme courts second amendment jurisprudence that is based in reality, read roughly pages 47-64 of the  heller opinion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.2    one month ago

That is correct and your president is wrong again!

Even the Washington Post has said that Biden’s understanding of the Second Amendment to be false.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Rights are good, but they are not absolute. There are limits to rights.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4    one month ago

What about the mentally ill?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    one month ago

What about them?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.2    one month ago

Their rights?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.4  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    one month ago

Same as everyone else. But there are still limits to rights.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.4    one month ago
Same as everyone else.

What do you mean?  Should those who are a danger to themselves and others have the same rights as everyone else?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.4.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4    one month ago

, but they are not absolute. There are limits to rights.

And Heller did not create an absolute right. Think of it as a compromise. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.7  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.5    one month ago

They already do. You seem to ignore the limitations of rights.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.7    one month ago

And you are conveniently ignoring the problem of putting the mentally ill out on the streets.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.9  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.8    one month ago

A strawman. We're talking rights, not homelessness.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.9    one month ago

Extended rights vs public safety

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.11  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.10    one month ago

As I've said before, rights have limits.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
I would have to admit that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. How does anybody who is the current president think otherwise?

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - Justice Antonin Scalia

Seems President Biden's comment was in line with how the supreme court reads the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is not absolute, it is not unlimited. President Biden was quite correct when he pointed this fact.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago

And to keep his 50 year streak going - Biden failed again.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    one month ago

He has the touch. Everything he touches turns to shit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    one month ago

How so?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  JBB    one month ago

President Biden made a strong case very eloquently.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago

Not in my lifetime.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago

Maybe if the listener was blackout drunk.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago
...the Second Amendment's right to bear arms includes the words "shall not be infringed"

The word "infringed" does not mean "abolished".  Those words do not prevent the Second Amendment from being abolished.  The huge number of American voting gun lovers are what will prevent it from being abolished and so "the beat goes on".

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago

They never acknowledge the, "Well Regulated", part!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @4.1    one month ago
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed,
well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in
that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather
that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.1    one month ago
They never acknowledge the, "Well Regulated", part!

Who is they?

I'm all in favor of the "Well Regulated" part.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @4.1    one month ago

So just like that the constitution matters?  

And what is this "they" garbage?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.4  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.1    one month ago

"Regulated" means "Regulated" not organized.

The word "Regulated" is redundant in the text.

Commerce is "Regulated". Trade "Regulated"...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @4.1.4    one month ago

You said we never acknowledge the "well regulated" part, well I gave you a link (from CNN of all places) that explains what "well regulated" means both in the confines of the 2nd Amendment and the time when the amendment was written.    In the Second Amendment it's "A well-regulated militia"..  In order to understand the words you need to also understand what the words meant when they are put to paper.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago
Those words do not prevent the Second Amendment from being abolished. 

Whenever congress so desires

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
5  magicschoolbusdropout    one month ago

"The Second Amendment is not absolute. When it was passed you couldn't own a cannon, you couldn't own certain kinds of weapons. There's just always been limitations."

Privateers must have been breaking the law back then.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
5.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5    one month ago

Whoops.................

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
5.1.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    one month ago
Whoops.................

Brandon's Great at whoopsie speak.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.1.1    one month ago

Who is Brandon?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    one month ago

Your president*.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.3    one month ago

It's so immature and idiotic to refer to President Biden as anything else other than President Joe Biden

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
5.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    one month ago

Yeah grow up and call him Bidenturd or something a REAL grown up, mature person would............/.S

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.5    one month ago

Well when the shoe fits.  trumpturd is being kind.  Whoops, time to take a trump.  The Turd Reich is good.  I could go on and on.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    one month ago

Well, then you go have your hissy fit and we'll continue.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
5.1.8  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    one month ago

256

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

Of course the United States of America is a much younger and much less mature nation than the UK where they actually DID something about the problem and IT WORKED.

How the 1996 Dunblane Massacre Pushed the U.K. to Enact Stricter Gun Laws
A devastating attack at a Scottish primary school sparked national outcry—and a successful campaign for gun reform

Some excerpts - of a somewhat similar massacre (LINK) ->

...a local shopkeeper walked into Dunblane Primary School and opened fire, killing 16  5- and 6-year-olds and their 45-year-old teacher...

By the end of 1997, Parliament had  banned private ownership  of most handguns, building on measures passed following the Hungerford killings, including a  semi-automatic weapons ban  and  mandatory registration  for shotgun owners.

Still, the fact remains that the U.K. has experienced only  one mass shooting —a 2010 attack in Cumbria that left 12 dead—since Dunblane. According to data compiled by the University of Sydney’s  GunPolicy.org , the U.K.’s  annual rate of gun deaths  per 100,000 people was 0.2 in 2015, versus the  United States’ rate  of 12.09. In 2017, the site estimates, the U.K. had 5.03 guns for every 100 people. Comparatively, the U.S. had 120.5 guns per 100 people.

CAVEAT:  This article is about 14 months old, it is from March 2021, and I'm not aware if there have been any mass shootings in the UK since that time.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    one month ago

We also passed strict gun laws in the US in the 90's.

They didn't work.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    one month ago

Maybe they only work in more civilized countries.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7  JBB    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @7    one month ago

gun-control-and-mental-illness-l.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

Why don't you cite relevant and up to date statistics?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8  Greg Jones    one month ago

More "common senseless" gun laws or "universal" background checks would not have stopped this scumbag sicko, or prevented any of the other mass shootings.

Locked doors might have helped.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
8.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Greg Jones @8    one month ago

There are roughly 130,000 K-12 schools in the US.  The US has given $53,000,000,000 to Ukraine.  That could have been roughly $400,000 in security / Education per school.  Looks like the focus of our politicians is on the wrong countries.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
8.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1    one month ago

Well..   yes and no.  While I'm not going to talk about Ukraine and corruption, I would hope that this country had learned it's lesson from WWII in that we cannot ignore when one country invades / abuses a smaller country and subjugate its population.  Instead there was over $100 billion in lost Covid relief money.  Had they put better controls in place that money could have instead been used for this.  Not to mention how much money has been wasted by the federal government in all the years since Sandy Hook or Columbine when it was first understood that this sort of security was needed.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
8.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.1    one month ago
Covid relief money.

That's another misuse of funds. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9  Ronin2    one month ago
Biden asked "when in God's name will we do what needs to be done"

I didn't make it past this part. He is right "when in God's name will we do what needs to be done" and impeach his sorry damn ass! I don't give a damn that the Republicans will not have the seats in the Senate to do it after midterms even if they win every seat that is up! They need to make an example out of Brandon that will last forever. Democrats have lowered the standards on impeachment to the point there aren't any. Time to pick that bar back up and impeach Brandon as many times as it takes. He either gets the message and retires; or is so damn shattered he retreats to his basement for the rest of his term in office.

Brandon promised to lead as a moderate; and unite the country. He caved instantly to the far left, bat shit crazy, TDS driven, morons of his party once in office. He has united the country in one thing only; hatred. Thankfully the majority seem to hate Brandon and the Democrats; so at least it is properly directed.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10  JBB    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @10    one month ago

I am an atheist, so your meme means nothing to me.

Since when do Democrats ever take responsibility for the destruction and devastation they have wrought? They blame Putin, Republicans, Trump (their #1 go to in any circumstance), and the all encompassing far right white supremacist. Seems you want to bring God into this; much like Brandon. Are the others not working for you; so you are moving on to a "higher power"?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @10    one month ago

mass-shooting-whose-to-blame-mentally-ill-criminals-legal-gun-owners.jpg?resize=539%2C311&ssl=1

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.2    one month ago

The right, today's republicans/gqp/gop/alleged conservatives led on and incited by their leader, trumpturd

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.2.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.2    one month ago

So you're saying that America must have a lot more mentally ill persons, radical Islamists and criminals than other CIVILIZED nations in order to achieve the numbers that cause the whole world to shake its head?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.2.2    one month ago

I'm saying America gave everybody extended "rights!"

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.2.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.2.3    one month ago

Well, seeing the results of that just might make it seem that those "rights" were somewhat OVERextended.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.2.4    one month ago

Agreed.

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
Ronin2


30 visitors