Active shooter Virginia Beach Municipal Center

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,879
2,504
1,743
So Cal
#81
The topic is guns-not marriage. Adherence to the 2nd amendment (or any other amendment) is not decided by the states.
and I never ever said that it was decided by the State (for the 10th freaking time) - but of course, "the States" could get together and change an amendment, in which case it would be decided by the States.

In fact, EVERYTHING is ultimately decided by the States, including the Constitution itself. The States, individually, cannot make changes affecting our constitutional liberties, but again, I think that was only a fairly recent interpretation by the Supreme Beings, and could be subject to change by subsequent rulings. Isn't that correct?
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,539
235
143
77539
#82
and I never ever said that it was decided by the State (for the 10th freaking time) - but of course, "the States" could get together and change an amendment, in which case it would be decided by the States.

In fact, EVERYTHING is ultimately decided by the States, including the Constitution itself. The States, individually, cannot make changes affecting our constitutional liberties, but again, I think that was only a fairly recent interpretation by the Supreme Beings, and could be subject to change by subsequent rulings. Isn't that correct?
That's not the point. The point is that you didn't care if the states enacted laws that were in opposition to the 2nd amendment. I do.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,099
13,593
1,743
#83
That's not the point. The point is that you didn't care if the states enacted laws that were in opposition to the 2nd amendment. I do.
Which brings up the question, didn't Chicago essentially outlaw guns? How can they do that?
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,259
31,816
1,743
oklahoma city
#85
If the above is true, it would explain why we haven't heard about it. I think we all know if he was a maga hat wearing Christian fundamentalist, those things would have been widely reported and the media would still be talking about it.
They are all reporting that the police are stating that they cannot find a motive and that it is puzzling. IT would seem to me if he claimed he did it to avenge the immigrant taht trump killed

Can you show an example where the media called out someone's politics and/or religion when it was not part of the motive?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,259
31,816
1,743
oklahoma city
#86
You know it's a slow day on OP when Cali and okst1 are having to resort to arguing with each other... :D
Bahahahahahaha. Classic. POTM.

Sorry, I haven't been around much to feed them but the cannibalism is more interesting than anything I could write. I think I might become a lurker.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,259
31,816
1,743
oklahoma city
#87
Here's my perspective, the removal of guns is not feasible and that can be demonstrated in countless ways. If we can demonstrate that, there is no need to defend the "if" gun removal was possible scenario (i.e., keeping guns off the streets). I view my perspective as giving no ground because I grant 0 possibility that guns can be removed from the streets in the first place. My point is purely, the issue of guns coming across the border is assuming the removal of guns, which in my opinion is impossible. Which raises the question, why debate a scenario that is contingent on the impossible happening? I hope I am explaining that clearly because I do believe that we are along very similar trains of thought, we're just missing.
Welcome.

Oh, and I'd just stop( not that I have been good at taking my own advice). It doesn't matter how many times and how logically you explain your position which is perfectly rational. At the point he has decided to argue with you, virtually nothing will change his mind away from arguing.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,618
2,168
743
Where else but Stillwater
#88
Unwanted pregnancy is not a problem the federal government should be sticking their nose in. Cultural norms, personal responsibility, strong family units and moral values should address this problem.
Christian conservatives would disagree with you about government, though they would strongly oppose birth control taught or made available in high schools. While liberals say you can't legislate morality, Christian conservatives insist that morality is the only thing that can be legislated.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,099
13,593
1,743
#89
Christian conservatives would disagree with you about government, though they would strongly oppose birth control taught or made available in high schools. While liberals say you can't legislate morality, Christian conservatives insist that morality is the only thing that can be legislated.
There is a significant different between legislating morality (outlawing behavior you find icky or immoral), and counting on public schools to provide birth control or educate on sexual issues.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,503
3,623
743
49
#92
Christian conservatives would disagree with you about government, though they would strongly oppose birth control taught or made available in high schools. While liberals say you can't legislate morality, Christian conservatives insist that morality is the only thing that can be legislated.
There is a significant different between legislating morality (outlawing behavior you find icky or immoral), and counting on public schools to provide birth control or educate on sexual issues.
Besides he might not agree with the moral compass of a Christian, but morality is already legislated. Unless he is against thievery, murder, and a host of other things being illegal.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,879
2,504
1,743
So Cal
#93
That's not the point. The point is that you didn't care if the states enacted laws that were in opposition to the 2nd amendment. I do.
hmmm..... when you get called for your shenanigans, then you change what "the point is", despite the entirety of your prior string of posts.

No Sir. "The Point" is that you put words in my mouth, then started berating me over the words that you put in my mouth. That is the point, or I would not still be posting.

I do not appreciate it one bit, and I really don't care if you're interested in what happens in other States. You could have just said that originally.

Just apologize for your behavior and move on.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,539
235
143
77539
#95
hmmm..... when you get called for your shenanigans, then you change what "the point is", despite the entirety of your prior string of posts.

No Sir. "The Point" is that you put words in my mouth, then started berating me over the words that you put in my mouth. That is the point, or I would not still be posting.

I do not appreciate it one bit, and I really don't care if you're interested in what happens in other States. You could have just said that originally.

Just apologize for your behavior and move on.
"I personally don't care what solution that people want to implement in their States for either abortion banning or gun banning ...."

Eat it!!!!