Such a weird story

  • 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.
Nov 6, 2010
981
366
613
#21
There is no debate. The Bill of Rights lists the activities that the Federal Government is NOT ALLOWED to do to us, not ever.

The 2nd says the Federal Government cannot take our guns.

What in the heck do you think there is to debate? We The People already told the Federal Government what they can do and more specifically what they can never do - like take our guns.

That was one of the conditions of our founding.

What debate are you talking about? The Federal Government does not have that authority.
So was she part of a well regulated militia?
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
7,218
6,717
1,743
Tulsa
#22
So was she part of a well regulated militia?
And here come the talking points...

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.

Not the people in the Militia. The people. Thereby allowing the people to form a Militia in case we ever need to defend ourselves against...... THE US GOVERNMENT!!!
 
Nov 6, 2010
981
366
613
#23
Ban on pump shotguns? Waiting periods or background checks for a bird-hunting gun? Respectfully, no thank you.

This woman needed psychiatric help. I'm very glad she didn't hurt any kids.
How about a red flag law from anyone paying attention?? She was clearly a danger to herself and others, and made no bones about it?? Why was she able to so easily obtain a firearm. And you know damn well a 12 gage with 00 buck shot can do max damage to more than upland game.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,209
24,205
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#24
It's not just parents who have failed it's our entire society. We have coddled kids too much...not let them experience adversity or failure....which leads to adults who don't know how to deal with it. Couple that with not teaching kids discipline or respect for others and you have many of the problems we face today concerning gun violence.

If the media would spend just half as much time blaming these actual things instead of an inanimate lump of metal and plastic, then we might just get somewhere.
 
Nov 6, 2010
981
366
613
#25
Standard talking points regarding the 2nd Amendment is the "regulated militia". As if the intention by the founders all along was that every single person had to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. Those talking points.
I'm not aware of those, but my reading is that the text was put in place to at least acknowledge that firearm ownership was a serious responsibility of citizenship, not to be taken lightly, and to be subject to reasonable regulation. Reasonable being the key word. Otherwise, why even include it??
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
7,218
6,717
1,743
Tulsa
#29
OK thanks. I'll start with the first quote from Washington.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."

Which of these was this girl?
And the second quote?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#30
There is no debate. The Bill of Rights lists the activities that the Federal Government is NOT ALLOWED to do to us, not ever.

The 2nd says the Federal Government cannot take our guns.

What in the heck do you think there is to debate? We The People already told the Federal Government what they can do and more specifically what they can never do - like take our guns.

That was one of the conditions of our founding.

What debate are you talking about? The Federal Government does not have that authority.
And...……………….like there was never debate or discussion regarding any of the 27 amendments. BTW, Constitutional Amendments AMEND the Constitution and/or any of the preceding Amendments. And yes the 2nd Amendment can be modified with another Amendment, just like the 21st Amendment changed/repealed the 18th Amendment. So let's just stop the NOT ALLOWED nonsense. If the States want to Amend the Constitution, it is the States' prerogative.
 
Nov 6, 2010
981
366
613
#31
And the second quote?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Stupid, but she wasn't a man. But worth pointing out that the intent of Jefferson in that quote would be that slaves couldn't own either. Seems a bit outdated.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,299
50,576
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#32
And the second quote?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Stupid, but she wasn't a man. But worth pointing out that the intent of Jefferson in that quote would be that slaves couldn't own either. Seems a bit outdated.
"She wasn't a man."

Sophistry.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
16,683
30,923
1,743
In Pokey's head
#34
"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".

It doesn't say a militia is mandatory, only necessary. In precision contract language the word "shall" carries great weight. It was no accident the amendment states while a militia is necessary, the right of the people to bear arms is immutable. This is not a complex or complicated sentence to anyone capable of right reason.

"Feelings" aside.
 
Last edited:
Nov 6, 2010
981
366
613
#35
"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".

It doesn't say a militia is mandatory, only necessary. In precision contract language the word "shall" carries great weight. It was no accident the amendment states while a militia in necessary, the right of the people to bear arms is immutable. This is not a complex or complicated sentence to anyone capable of right reason.

"Feelings" aside.
Great, so I'll put you in the category of defending this lunatic chic's rights to guy a gun without condition or review. Excellent choice.
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
16,683
30,923
1,743
In Pokey's head
#36
Great, so I'll put you in the category of defending this lunatic chic's rights to guy a gun without condition or review. Excellent choice.
And since I didn't weigh in on that issue in my post, I'll put you in the category of incapable of right reason or even reading comprehension. Keep fighting the windmills though, you're entertaining.

https://youtu.be/0stjlgpGw-8
 
Jul 22, 2011
1,858
2,387
743
#38
How about a red flag law from anyone paying attention?? She was clearly a danger to herself and others, and made no bones about it?? Why was she able to so easily obtain a firearm. And you know damn well a 12 gage with 00 buck shot can do max damage to more than upland game.
Nothing you suggest would have prevented this girl from hurting herself or others. Nothing.

By all means though, advocate “background checks for buckshot”
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
16,683
30,923
1,743
In Pokey's head
#39
Cute, so sell her the 12 G or not?
Having owned an FFL for a number of years with no crystal ball available, I would have let her fill out her paperwork and submitted it to be approved or denied by those responsible for such decisions.

If I knew her intentions I would have thrown her out of my store and called the police. We both understand there would have been no way to know that. At least I understand.
 
Nov 6, 2010
981
366
613
#40
Having owned an FFL for a number of years with no crystal ball available, I would have let her fill out her paperwork and submitted it to be approved or denied by those responsible for such decisions.

If I knew her intentions I would have thrown her out of my store and called the police. We both understand there would have been no way to know that. At least I understand.
So who are responsible for said decisions?? At least your open to the idea that some form of vetting is appropriate. That seems like a good start for reasonable discussion to me.