A Champion of the Second Amendment has murdered at least four people and wounded five more in Santa Monica. The Gun Bearing Freedom Fighter took out his Godly Tool of Liberty, girded on his ammo belt, thousands of rounds of freedom, Bullet Proof Vest and BDUs and exercised his 2nd Amendment Rights upon America.
I'm still waiting to see where in the Constitution the Founding Fathers chiseled the Right to Mass Slaughter. I don't see it in the Second Amendment and being a Strict Constutionalist myself I don't see where anything other than a vague reference to a muzzle-loading blunderbus, a brace of flintlock pistols and perhaps a 3 pound Galloper and the deleted reference to carrying arms in defense of the State is in the Constitution.
But, I am so glad America is awash in Guns because these mass shootings don't take place.
And while the ACA (Obamacare) does not have everything I wanted it does address mental health issues instead of just ignoring those with mental illness as is the American predilection. But, you now what's more important than attempting to deal with Mental Illness in America is voting 37 times to Repeal Obamacare!
Oh, but we need concealed carry because then the shooter will think twice if that fear his targets might be armed. Of course, a mentally deficient person won't think twice (because they don't think once) about embarking on a killing rampage and won't hesitate because you might be carrying a pistol.
And any cold-blooded killer with the wherewithal to plan a Mass Shooting is simply going to up-armor himself to defeat handguns and equip himself with a long gun.
And despite all the Charles Bronson Death Wish movies you've seen I highly doubt you have the target acquisition skills to drop a would be murderer inside a carjacked vehicle.
Everyday brings another mass shooting. Everyday brings another story of a 4 year old finding a loose gun laying around the house, which he uses to shoot his baby sister, his Veteran father or himself. Everyday brings another story of a negligent discharge wounding or killing children and innocent bystanders.
If a Shotgun goes off at a Sportsman's Club because of Negligence but Wayne LaPierre doesn't talk about it; Did it Happen?
The callous disregard Gun Nuts have is astounding. As the frequency of these shootings seemingly increases Wayne LaPierre doesn't even bother to release statements anymore. Because why should he?
As the bodies pile up Gun Hugging Asses immediately and reflexively defend Guns no matter what. The more deaths we have the more entrenched and ravingly incensed about Guns they become. If, We as a Nation, acknowledged the Gun Deaths Epidemic as Terrorism we'd be able to deal with this much more effectively.
15 comments:
The single largest demographic killed by guns......white men 40 - 65. Same demographic that owns the most guns. The killer is 1) almost always a close friend/relative, 2) or the finger of the dead man. It's a right, want to shorten your life, buy a gun. Dr. Kovorkian lives on in every gun store.
"I don't see where anything other than a vague reference to a muzzle-loading blunderbus....."
Actually, you know full well that the 2A only refers to firearms, and is usually accepted by all logical parties to mean those of the individual variety. It does not stipulate classes of firearms.
Numerous SCOTUS cases however, have upheld that the 2A protects 'firearms in common use'...which makes sense, since as technology progresses in all fields, it is illogical to restrict the Constitutional right of American citizens be limited only to technology two hundred years old, and only in one instance.
Out of curiosity, are those who engage in criminal libel and slander, 1st Amendment champion? Or is the irrational projection only limited to the 2nd?
Yellow Fringe,
Guns in homes for "Self-Defense" are most likely used to kill family members or in accidental shooting deaths.
CI,
2A doesn't read "firearms" but "arms" and logic has nothing whatsoever to do with the rigmarole of the Constitution.
But, like the Bible people read into the document what they want not what it actually represented at the time. And people pick and choose when they want a broad interpretation or a narrow one.
And I don't hear a uproad over reinterpreting the 7A because $20 USC used to be equivalent to 1 oz of gold back in the 18th century but is "worth" 1/70th of that today.
And yes since Faux News and Jon Karl and Glenn Greenwald feel comfortable in engaging in fact-free "reporting" lies are protected by the 1st Amendment.
So how then does the 2A contain a "vague reference to a muzzle-loading blunderbus, a brace of flintlock pistols and perhaps a 3 pound Galloper"?
The Kellerman study that you reference is indeed touted as gospel, but do know that there are rebuttals to the methodology.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
CI,
You're right I should have included Claymores (not the modern ones but the basket-hilted swords) and Frigates and dirks! Those all fall under the category "arms"
Well...at least you didn't insert RPGs and hand grenades.....as the gun control cabal is wont to do. Sounds almost as if you concur with SCOTUS on their common use ruling.
I don't see it in the Second Amendment and being a Strict Constutionalist myself I don't see where anything other than a vague reference to a muzzle-loading blunderbus, a brace of flintlock pistols and perhaps a 3 pound Galloper and the deleted reference to carrying arms in defense of the State is in the Constitution.
When the Bill of Rights was originally put into print those who wrote out the 2nd Amendment were refering to modern military arms. Some people get mixed up and think they were just refering to muzzle loaders as those were the modern military firearms of the time but just as easily as anyone can claim the 1st Amendment protects internet posts it can be argued the 2nd Amendment protects modern firearms.
With that out of the way how about we address the shooting in Santa Monica. We have heard the blame placed on the US Congress not passing new background check legislation. Funny but California has had not only background checks but also a 14 day waiting period for deckades and that did not stop the foreign student who killed his father and his brother before going on to kill several more people.
Then we have the Santa Monica Police Chief saying that IF he had filled all of the magazines they found he COULD have had fired 1,300 rounds. Nice but IF we're talking about what COULD have happened he could have had a NUCLEAR weapon and KILLED over a million people. Could of, shold of, would of... if we're off into the land of imagination why should we limit ourselves to clamping down on guns? Why not knives, swimming pools, Saran Wrap, rope, automobiles, trans fats, balloons, and electric lamps!? They are all deadly so why not treat them in the same fashion?
The Santi Monica Chief of Police exagerated to make the 2nd Amendment look bad. She should be removed from duty.
Hazel,
No, your first paragraph about applying the 2A towards modern weapons did not succeed in getting the issue "out of the way". You are interpreting the Bill of Rights in a way that conforms to your beliefs. It's not bad that you are doing this but understand that most people pick and choose what rights they want applied and what rights they don't want applied.
Just like how Banksters and Wall Street Thieves don't want Government cracking down on them and their legerdermain. And the Rapist Football Players wanted to sexually violate the unconscious girl because she was there and unknowing.
The problem is Law and Government has a duty and moral obligation to enforce laws even if it makes you mad.
And the killer wasn't a foreign student he's been here for 20 years. So I'm not certain what your motive for peddling that bit of 'only muslim foreigners' commit crimes but no Pamela Gellar lies allowed here.
And since a criminal is going to break a law, laws don't work, ergo we should abolish all laws, espeically when it comes to guns, correct?
"And since a criminal is going to break a law, laws don't work, ergo we should abolish all laws, espeically when it comes to guns, correct?"
Yet, might you not agree that when a criminal breaks all existing laws in the commission of his crime, simply passing more laws, is not going to mitigate future crime.
If you are of the opinion that the 2A implicitly refers to firearms in a static technological state, can you point to the foundation that informs your opinion?
Yes, CI no law in and of itself has ever stopped a crime. Society's Mores, ethics and customs, upbringing, law enforcement and
Criminals always find loopholes to exploit in laws in order to get away with their crimes. That's what Wall Street thieves have been doing for decades under the guise of "Capitalism".
And of course I have a Foundation, the 7A states,
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Yet, $20 in 1789 is not the same as $20 today. So why hasn't the Amendment been reinterpreted to conform to modern money values? SCOTUS, in fact, has never incorporated that clause.
Then I look forward to your campaign to require all firearms be relinquished, for exchange with muskets.
Yet, $20 in 1789 is not the same as $20 today. So why hasn't the Amendment been reinterpreted to conform to modern money values? SCOTUS, in fact, has never incorporated that clause.
Yet the courts have ruled I have 4th Amendment protections against an unreasonable search of my automobile. How can that be since they did not have automobiles back in the day?
As CI said in an earlier post it is illogical to restrict our rights to 200+ year old technology.
The Bill of Rights has not changed but some people are actively trying to apply different standards to the individual amendments and that's shady business.
Hazel,
I've pointed a clear example from the Bill of Rights which has not be incorporated and kept in accord with changing times.
The Bill of Rights hasn't changed but peoples' attitudes and interpretations have changed.
Gene,
Why do you insist on calling homicidal criminals Second Amendment Heroes? They are sociopaths; not heroes.
Post a Comment