1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

* To Protect and Serve*

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by Dawg, May 19, 2019.

  1. llovejim

    llovejim Current Champion

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2019
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    306
    of course it is, stupid. it is not to just investigate. if it was just an investigative agency why do they carry guns and get training in martial arts and gun proficiency? how many people investigating a crime are facing danger, stupid? who needs a gun to ask questions after the crime is investigated? cops who see a broken window or an open door in a business after hours go in with their guns drawn, TO INVESTIGATE OR TO STOP A CRIME? are you insane? good god, ass. the supreme court does not mandate policy or everyday functions of every person or agency in this country, that is what that decision meant, you clown. it is their duty to protect citizens. period. not a constitutional mandate!! it is the duty of soldiers to follow lawful orders, but it is not a constitutional mandate. you are so [Unwelcome language removed] stupid it hurts to read your shit.
     
  2. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    229
    1) You need those things to arrest criminals
    2) They do protect politicians, just not citizens
    3) It's possible the criminals are still around when they come to investigate their crimes

    Sure, cops will protect you if they happen to be there. But be honest, they are typically only to the crime scene when the criminal is gone.

    And again, that's fine, that's what they are designed to do. Just don't take away our ability to protect ourselves, our families and our property by disarming us. Then we are defenseless against criminals
     
  3. Max R.

    Max R. On the road Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    18,880
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Max R.

    Max R. On the road Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    18,880
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    "Assault weapons" is a fabricated term generated by the anti-gun movement. "High capacity clips (magazines)" are an arbitrary term. If Obama's gun ban bill had passed, it would have limited magazines to 10 rounds. How many years before those became "high capacity" and there was an effort to reduce it to five rounds?
     
  5. llovejim

    llovejim Current Champion

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2019
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    306
    if you actually read the Second Amendment, it clearly states this first-

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

    If you know anything about legal terms and legal writing, whatever is stated first in any decree is considered the most important, and that which follows, secondary...obviously. What the Founding Fathers clearly wrote is that because this nation, without a large standing army, needs a well-regulated militia force, in order to protect ourselves from hostile forces, a deterrent force, and it is necessary to our security for such a force to exist...AND THE REST OF THE AMENDMENT- the right of the people (in these well-regulated militias so necessary to our security) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. IT SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT CITIZENS HAVING THE RIGHT TO OWN..OWN..AND BEAR ARMS.

    Makes sense. That is the same as saying soldiers should be able to keep and bear arms. Or even police. Anyone in a well regulated militia or well organized force that is necessary to the security of the state. See how it does not even state "own" arms, just "keep." And notice how it says arms, not guns. Arms means every type of weapon that can be used in war...BUT WHO BELIEVES AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN SHOULDER FIRED GROUND TO AIR MISSILES AND ROCKET LAUNCHERS? using your bizarre reading of the Second Amendment, why would those weapons be outlawed? or land mines? or bazookas?
     
  6. Max R.

    Max R. On the road Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    18,880
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    The error of your logic is that you are assuming the Constitution limits citizens, not the Federal government. The right of self-defense is an unalienable right. We, the People don't need to have it in writing.
     
  7. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    229
    Actually, it depends on the sentence structure. In this case, the first part is an explanation, not a condition.

    "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 says ... because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Note the right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no qualification to that.

    That of course is logical for two reasons. First, militia's were defined by the people. The people had a right to make that determination as well as protect themselves.

    Second, it's completely inane to suggest that they put as the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights that the people have the right to arms, but government will decide if they have that right. Why put it in at all then? That would be a meaningless right
     
    • Disagree x 1
  8. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    229
    So government was afraid that government would take it's own guns away? WTF? That's insane.

    Jim: Government put in the bill of rights, a power of government. Government has the right to guns and to tell the people what arms they are allowed to have. There is no right of actual citizens protected in the second amendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

    Dude, government has rights too, they need to be protected from the people. Dig it?
     
  9. llovejim

    llovejim Current Champion

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2019
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    306
    the right of self defense is to me an unalienable right, but i could say the right for women to have control over their own bodies is, or the right for black kids to get the same education as white kids is, but without constitutional guarantees and enforcement, what i say don't mean shit in a court of law, get it? You, the people, can carry a gun wherever you want. and you, the people, can get your ass arrested if you try to take it on a plane, or any courthouse, or in a jail visiting friends in jail, or in a state legislature..get it? you just keep thinking constitutional rights are not needed for citizens to own guns or to vote or to even have your kid go to the nearest public school if you are a black person- and all you have to do is believe that is your "right" and see how far that gets you.
     
  10. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    229
    So should a woman be able to prostitute herself? Should she be able to decide what drugs to put in them? Should be able to use her body to work for less than a random wage assigned by government? Should be able to sell her body parts?

    I say yes to all of those. Just want to know if you're consistent
     
  11. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    229
    Other than a few nut jobs, that isn't the issue. You don't have a right to take a gun those places. They are in government buildings. They are not just out in public. The issue is all the restrictions that are being placed on having guns in public and in many places even on your own property
     
  12. OldTrapper

    OldTrapper Council Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2019
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    51
    I would not disagree with "open carry" as long as the Second is looked upon the original intent of the Founders, the Militia. Thu, I would require two years mandatory service for all able bodied men, and an elimination of unjust wars that have nothing to do with the defense of the country (Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.) This antagonizing of the rest of the world solely for the sake of the "military industrial complex" must end.
     
  13. Max R.

    Max R. On the road Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    18,880
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Agreed, hence why I think both political parties have become anti-American, unConstitutional authoritarian assclowns. Republicans in their efforts to subjugate women and Democrats in their effort to disarm the population. There's obviously more to it, but those are biggies.

    As for education, all kids do that right. The problem isn't the Feds, it's local. Only 8% of school funding is Federal. The rest is state and local taxes. Education is funded mostly locally and if the county is poor, the schools are poor.
     
  14. llovejim

    llovejim Current Champion

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2019
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    306
    No, you are wrong. It is an explanation and a condition. And even you, I would bet, do not truly believe every American has the right to own every possible weapon of war, which is what "arms" means. You do not think the Founding Fathers knew the difference between guns and all arms of war? Do you really think the Founding Fathers want private citizens to have even the more primitive weapons of war in those times, like cannons and the like? And why do they say "keep" weapons, not "own." Keep sounds like what a well-regulated militia would have back then, their members keeping their weapons near them so they could mobilize more quickly, and when they were no longer in the militia, not keeping them. I believe the Founding Fathers believed all people had the right to own guns!! It was such a basic freedom they did not even try to protect it...how the hell else did anyone hunt game or be protected so far away from any police force in such rugged times? the Second Amendment is clearly about the militia and about arms of war.
     
  15. Max R.

    Max R. On the road Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    18,880
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Do you agree that all people have right of self-defense and that unalienable right means carry a gun?
     
  16. llovejim

    llovejim Current Champion

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2019
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    306
    well, not wanting loons to have access to assault weapons and high capacity clips, and having universal background checks, is hardly an attempt to disarm the population. When was it ever okay for Americans to own any weapon of war they wanted?
     
  17. The Thinker

    The Thinker Over The Top Abuser

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages:
    39,501
    Likes Received:
    8,810
    That's the beauty of it. Pass silly laws. When they don't work, use that as the reason for more oppressive laws.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Max R.

    Max R. On the road Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    18,880
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Loons, yes, but you're seeking to prevent the remaining 99.999% of Americans from having that access.
     
  19. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    229
    If you understand the English language and know how to read it, then it's clearly an explanation, not a condition. Try again. There is nothing that says the explanation should be met. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is completely clear. Your claim that it says shall not be infringed, but it can be infringed, is lame.

    If you want limits on what people can have, then do it the right way. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. 50%+1 or worse, 5/9 are not in the Constitution.

    Also, just because you have a right to something doesn't mean you can actually do it. Monty Python explained this phenomenon.



    You have a right to an F-16. Now try to go buy one ... Freedom to bear arms does not say it's government's job to arm you or sell you weapons.
     
  20. llovejim

    llovejim Current Champion

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2019
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    306
    no. not in public, because that is when you infringe on my right to not be around wimps too scared to be in public without a gun. in your own home- go for it. as long as it is not an assault weapon with high capacity clips. why you think it makes you safer when all the facts show a gun in the house is used 30 times more often to shoot the owner, or a family member, or a friend than to shoot a bad guy is beyond me, but go for it!! in the meantime, stay away from me and my family in public with a gun or there will be trouble.

    does this guy look normal to you?

    gun nut krogers.
     

Share This Page