[jebartle]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Beto was totally out of line.

Sometimes our leaders??? Need to be questioned!!!!!

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

No, you said that since you couldn't prove (or wouldn't prove me wrong) on the founding fathers being Christian than you consider it false.

And I think you had better go back and read the First Amendment over. It says nothing of "preferred."

I believe I said "wouldn't" and followed in the same post with because it has already been proven/answered many times. So, if you wanted to prove itI would be open to looking at your proof, but as far I I was concerned credible sources had already adequately answer the question and I was not going to waste my time research yet another of your claims.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Uh, yeah, considering there had just been a successful insurrection, uh, revolution, and a lot of people that were "loyalists" and if they had the ability would certainly have caused trouble for the newbies starting the new country.

There is also significant evidence that the 2nd amendment was put in to get states supporting slavery to sign on, since they wanted guns to control the slaves, and the slaves, not being humans, were not allowed to own guns, so did not benefit from the 2nd.

I expect it is HARD to KNOW what all went into the politics of forming a new country and a new form of government (sort of). I am certain there was a lot of closed door meetings and margining going on.

But, it is there, it is the law. So, since there is not a snowballs chance in hell of repealing the 2nd, we live with it.

I think it's important to look at our history prior to 1787 and what led up to the writing of the Constitution. Arguably the path was set with the Stamp Act of 1765, converging in Concord and Lexington in 1775 as the British moved to disarm Americans. Our Revolutionary War lasted 8 years and they were very hard desperate years. As Patrick Henry famously said, "I know not what path others may take, but for me, give me Liberty or give me Death.". That sentence sums up our quest for Independence and self-determination. John Dickinson's name has been lost to history for most Americans, but his importance for his time can't be understated. He wrote the grievances to King George, which are delineated in our Declaration of Independence, as well as the Articles of Confederation. But, after eight years of governing this new nation under the Articles it was clear it didn't work and needed to be fixed.

In 1787, 12 of the 13 states sent delegates to Philadelphia with one directive, fix the Articles. It was clear they were not authorized to do anything else. The debates ensued and it didn't take long for them to recognize that the Articles were not salvageable. The debates continued and they drafted the Constitution. Individual citizens Rights were not included.

I think the heart of the matter, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, comes to Federalism versus Anti-Federalism. I can really appreciate that they were able to work together to create our Freedom documents. I think we can all understand that surviving eight years of war with the most powerful government and most powerful military of their time might leave them resistant to create another government that might oppress them some day (Anti-Federalists). We can also understand the need of having a strong government and global presence (Federalists). The leading Federalists, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams and more did not want a Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, did not want a strong central government and fought for a Bill of Rights to be included.

It is not difficult to get into the hearts and minds of our Founding Fathers. So much of it is documented. James Madison knew they were doing historic work and transcribed all of their debates. They can be read in a bound book that is 600 type written pages. There are other books on the debates. We have the writings of John Dickinson, Joseph Story, Daniel Webster and so many more. Between 1776 and 1826, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote 1,250 letters to each other. Today that is three volumes.

Knowing that their government sought to disarm them; knowing that they fought eight long years against their government for Independence from oppressive government agendas; and knowing that absolute power corrupts absolutely, I understand the need to enshrine certain Rights with the goal of never having the same oppression. It was required that all 13 states ratify the new Constitution and it took 10 of 13 to pass the Amendments. The Framers heard the message loud and clear that it would not get ratified if the Individual Rights were not included. Madison presented 19 Amendment to the House, to appease the Anti-Federalists. The House presented 17 Amendments to the Senate who paired them down to 12, rewriting some before sending them to the states. The States approved 10 of the Amendments which became our Bill of Rights. One of the Amendments that allowed Congress to give themselves a raise remained unpassed until 1992 when it became our 27th Amendment.

So, I totally understand the very important need to keep and bear arms from the perspective of our Founding Fathers if only for the need to once again face off with an oppressive government. Having arms for the purpose of hunting and self-defense would not even have been a debate or conversation in 1787, it would have been a given, as simply common sense. As I've mentioned, I have nearly 70 books in my library devoted on the Constitution. Personally, I think I am in between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Clip.....magazine ..........Potato Pa tah to......big deal. I know the technical difference. But clip and magazine are basically interchangeable terms to the average person. Plus clip is quicker to type.
..........People should try and focus in on the main point of a post - not try to point out minor flaws.

You don't post here often do you? The number one strategy of people that can't prove their point (that being Carlson's points) is deflection and ignoring the point of the post to focus on minutiae so they can strut around and quibble. They would have a point if the word in question would (or could) cause confusion. But, it is never the case. Clip Magazine, or maybe Assault weapon, the AF15 is NOT an assault weapon. Even though the term assault weapon mean in general parlance a military looking semi-automatic weapon which can be converted to auto with a bump stock. It is technically wrong. and all refrigerators are not frig's and all adjustable spanners are not crest wrenches, and on and on.

I am sure that makes the parents of the 19 tea children feel much better, they right word will now be used to describe what murdered their children.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Scbang

OK then, why are we not allowed M50 machine gun? It's just another method of killing.

Sad

You are allowed if, you got money and permit. Or you can buy one on blackmarket like cartels. In this world you can get anything as long as you got enough money and connection.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Sad that there is no good answer to this other than better protection of our children.

IMO The protection part failed at the school. It’s called complacency.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

You think so small - why not an M1 Abrams. (sarcasm/joke)

The Argument that the 2nd amendment is intended to allow citizens to take back a rogue government would require that the citizens be as well equipped as the government.

And no where does the constitution list any limitations on the weapons we are Allowed to have, so according to the recent SCOTUS leaked decision on abortions not being as an enumerated right - so it isn't covered, I can only assume ANYTHING not mentioned in the constitution is not covered.
I want my M1 Abrams NOW. and I think I will take a few Cruise missiles to go along with it.

Finally, can we have a civil conversation on common sense abortion? Before people freak out, nobody is coming for your abortions. We just need to be rational and discuss common sense abortion control. It isn't too much to ask for mandatory background checks with mental health assessment and a nationwide registration list so we know who is having abortions. We need to stop assault abortions occurring after the first trimester and for God's sake, nobody needs high capacity abortions for twins and triplets. One abortion per woman should be plenty because really nobody needs more than one abortion

(*Borrowed from Katie Lamb on TikTok.)

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

You're seeing this with the same myopic lens that you complain about in others.

People living in the suburbs and cities were also taught to fear guns. At least in the cities and suburbs where I grew up. In the more rural areas, everyone had a rifle near the back door to chase off coyotes and bears. But you NEVER heard anything about that, on our side of the county. Why? Because there were no coyotes and bears on our side of the county. We had no need for guns. In our area, the purpose of guns was to shoot people. And civilized people simply didn't DO that. No - the only people who shot other people were criminals, and cops who chased down criminals.

In our part of free America, we were free to not NEED guns. It was an idyllic upbringing, FREE from crime, FREE from violence, FREE from the need to regulate a thing. We were self-regulating.

Sadly - that idyllic free society has become more and more isolated from the rest of the country. But blaming it on the current batch of kids being afraid of guns just can't possibly be true. Because if it were true, and 18-year-old kid wouldn't have used one to kill 19 other kids this week.

In you’re part of America someone else done all the dirty work so you part don’t have to.

No bears or wolfs cause they been eliminate.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I don't think anyone makes a 30 round clip. Frankly, I don't know if any modern rifles even utilize a clip.

Ironically, when Democrats start chanting about gun control the demand for guns and ammo rises dramatically. Introduce a pandemic and force people to stay home for lockdowns created the huge surge in ammo sales along with millions of first time gun buyers entering the market.

Gee whiz Batwoman! Somehow banana magazine does NOT have the same nice ring to it as BANANA CLIP. And the logic of blaming dems for the recent increase to 400,000 guns in civilian US hands seems a little........shall we say WEAK. There is some other reason for that increase? One religion expert recently tossed out a theory something like.........the religious right-wing uses GUNS as a kind of "virtue signaling". I assume that this lets them find ACCEPTANCE within that religious right. The young man whispers into the fair maiden's ear, "You like GUNS, I like GUNS, let's .........get married and make little right-wing babies"!
.........That is just one theory. I am not sure myself what has caused this recent increase. I need to further ponder that?

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

There was an officer there. The school district even has it's own trained in school shootings police force. It didn't work. The city police were 3 minutes away from the school, and took 15 MINUTES to get to the school. They then waited 45 more minutes to go inside, while children were being murdered.

Meanwhile the police stood outside the school for an HOUR, arguing with parents that were begging them to go in and save their children. One woman even had to be handcuffed to prevent her from trying herself, since the police weren't doing anything.

The official story coming out would make you think everything went according to plan, that did not happen.

What get when start mass prosecution of police officers. Yes, some was warranted but when you tie there hands and then play next day quarter back what it coming to.

[biker1]

Oh, you really mean abortions, not birth control. It takes a lack of moral compass to conflate the two.

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

A state-by-state breakdown of how Republicans plan to attack reproductive healthcare

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by zendog3

No gun safety laws will be passed.No law will limit assault rifles with high capacity magazines. So what can be done? This is legislation that our conservative legislators will support:
1. Quit wasting energy trying to increase gun safety.
2. Realize the NRA is right. The only protection against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.
3. Pass a law requiring every school teacher to carry a loaded automatic pistol anytime he or she is near children.
4. Children under 14 should probably not carry guns, but 15 and older should be required to carry guns while in school to protect themselves.
5. Halls in schools should have glass boxes every 50 yards with a loaded gun inside and a sing that says 'IN CASE OF ACTIVE SHOOTER, BREAK GLASS AND SHOOT INTRUDER.
These laws would stop school shootings! Who would be stupid enough to attack a school if they knew everyone in the place was armed? These common-sense laws would also eliminate bullying. No one wold bully another, if the knew the bullied person had easy access to a deadly weapon.
Widespread gun ownership would also stop road rage. If someone cuts me off, I am unlikely to assail him at the next stop sign if I know he is packing heat.

Spoken like someone who buys the NRA propaganda lock, stock, and double-barrel.

Here's a clue for you (you won't listen to it but here it is anyway):

The NRA has spread the meme about "the only protection against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The NRA is having their convention this weekend. The NRA convention, supposedly FILLED with nothing but the "best" guys with guns - has banned guns at the convention.

Why is that? Why would they be afraid of the one bad guy with a gun, in a convention filled with thousands of goods guys with guns? Why would they need to forbid ALL firearms there?

The answer: because they don't believe that the only way to protect against a bad guy with a gun is to be a good guy with a gun. They don't believe a word of it. What they believe, is that one bad guy with a gun is a really BAD thing, and since they have no way of knowing which guy is the bad one, they're telling them that none of them can have them. You know, the one thing they're accusing certain political party people of trying to do to them - take away their guns.

At their convention - they're taking away your guns. That's what the NRA is doing, to their own guests at their own convention.

But doing that isn't right for anyone else. It's only right for them.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Gee whiz Batwoman! Somehow banana magazine does NOT have the same nice ring to it as BANANA CLIP. And the logic of blaming dems for the recent increase to 400,000 guns in civilian US hands seems a little........shall we say WEAK. There is some other reason for that increase? One religion expert recently tossed out a theory something like.........the religious right-wing uses GUNS as a kind of "virtue signaling". I assume that this lets them find ACCEPTANCE within that religious right. The young man whispers into the fair maiden's ear, "You like GUNS, I like GUNS, let's .........get married and make little right-wing babies"!
.........That is just one theory. I am not sure myself what has caused this recent increase. I need to further ponder that?

Liberal rant, that’s all.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I would like to posit another point on guns. Why are illegal guns so available? Why are so many poor teens buying guns? I suggest our wonderful failure - WAR ON DRUGS. A young poor kid (not this one) looking at a life of poverty or flipping burgers and comparing that to a life with fast cars and women and all they have to do is sell drugs on street corners and get rich. The life may be short, but it will be fun!

Selling drugs provides the funds to buy these no so inexpensive guns. How many poor teens could drop out of school and buy a Luger or AR15 and ammunition? It is the street sales of illegal drugs that funds it. And the guns are simply a tool needed in that line of business.

That is the seed (root cause in my humble opinion). That then leads to all the evils we hear about is large cities - you never hear about a gang doing drive by battings.

Legalizing all drugs will eventually eliminate that entire source of funding for purchasing and using guns by teens and all the crime and deaths caused by them. And it would eliminate all the Billions of dollars we spend on the endless useless Drug War. It would eliminate a large source of income for Drug cartels.

The only down side would be addicts, and the crime, medical and other costs related to that. And other countries have shown that those costs are more than offset by taxing the drug sales.

I propose that one step in stopping gun violence would be to legalize and tax all drugs. Not perfect, it won't stop all gun violence, but I think it is pretty obvious that it would eliminate most.

Interesting theory, but how would that explain the increase from 300 thousand to 400 thousand guns in the last 2 years?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Uh, nope, actually, the main difference between English and U.S. safeguards is that English protections rest on statute or case law and may be changed by ordinary statute, whereas U.S. safeguards are constitutional and cannot be relaxed unless the Supreme Court later reverses its interpretation or the Constitution is amended. In addition, our law is judged based on precedent and English law is based on case law. Judges in England have virtually no latitude in judgements, they must rule based on common law, here judges have a lot of latitude and arguments are mostly based on precedent of "similar" cases to determine how to apply the law. Very different.

The claim by many experts that English common law is based on Christianity is rooted in Christianity is a result of the "Church of England" (based on Catholic - without the pope) and is a major reason many people came to the US to get away from a state sponsored religion. I recommend the Patriot Papers for more details.

And I could point out many other religions that also propose "morals" and "ethics" and "laws". As has been posted, some where is religion referenced in the constitution except the prescription of the government endorsing it. In the western world Christianity has had a very dominate affect on morality and ethics. But, it is not along, and the Constitution is very clear the founders did not want religion playing a role in government.

I have NO problem with people practicing their religion, I have a lot of problem with anyone wanting ME to practice their religion.

That includes my older brother who has multiple doctorates, with his first as Doctor of Theology, and has been on multiple Presidents ethics/morality advisory counsels, including President Bush, and worked as a Southern Baptist Minister in rather large churches around the country his entire life. He KNOWS better than to "encourage" me to go to church! And he adamantly opposes any infiltration of religion into the government and will not hesitate to let you know why if you ask... LOL!

Good educational post. And I ask this question.......do Charter Schools blur the line between church and state? And were they specifically engineered to do just that ?