another day, another shooting

[Puffnstuff]

The right comes directly from Allah!

Wasn't he the guy who got caught humping a dead 🐪?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Of course they "can be." They "can be" taken away by anyone with force no matter what the constitutions says. The difference here is that they can't be taken away with constitutional/legal means. The wording ensures it.



You're still not getting it. "Any right granted by the constitution can be removed" is no, duh, territory. You think a conquerer aiming to subjugate Americans and destroy the government is concerned with the Constitution? Of course not. The problem is that repeating "any right granted by the constitution can be removed" fails to address the other relevant point about this specific wording.

The relevance is for the people granted constitutional authorities (our government) explicitly defined in the Constitution. Just like prohibition, we established that they are allowed to add/remove constitutional rights through amendments... "words" that they have the Constitutional authority to change. That's the "duh" part again. The difference here is that the "God-given" wording doesn't allow for this one aspect to be legally changed by amendment. It isn't about whether or not God is real. The Constitution explicitly says neither it nor anyone amending it has the power to change that aspect, which is the important part everyone dismissing it as "just words" has failed to address.

Those "words" ensure that anyone changing them does so without constitutional authority just like a foreign conqueror or warlord since it grants them no authority to do so. It's a pretty significant impact on the feasibility of changing it legally and can't be dismissed with "just words" or "God's not real." The wording makes a reversal of that part an overreach of constitutional authority by defining it as beyond the purvue of government authorities/powers granted by the Constitution. To deny that this complicates any attempt to repeal the 2A just because "God isn't real" is just playing dumb. By attributing the right to "God," it expressly denies them and itself the authority to make such a change.

Bringing up Prohibition shows you're still ignoring how conferring the authority to God complicates things, which is the only thing I'm trying to convey here. Prohibition or drinking alcohol were never defined as God-given rights which makes it completely irrelevant to the argument about whether calling these "God-given rights" complicates anything.

This, of course, only means something to people who think the constitution was set forth by God. You can get hung up on it all day long, but it's going in the direction of believers will believe whatever they want to, facts be damned. Kinda like how the Bible was written by men, but it's men who were under the influence of God and he wrote through them.

"God isn't real" is just playing dumb, that one made me lol...so thanks for that. Can't prove a negative? That means you're dumb!! neener neener neener!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Wasn't he the guy who got caught humping a dead 🐪?

1. Can't prove it.
2. Eye witness testimony? Deep state fake news
3. Even if he did, there's nothing wrong with moving on her like a bitch, he's famous
4. That cow was asking for it, just look how she angled her toe at him
5. Camel toe is now considered holy, and must remained covered at all times.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Because 2A is for everyone, including terrorists.

Just not MMJ patients.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Now there's word the Turd was mad at the instructor for calling him names in class.

 

[UNCjigga]

Probably completely unrelated, but the city of Pensacola (where the shooting occurred) is now under cyberattack:

Cyberattack hits city of Pensacola. Officials aren't sure if it's related to shooting at Naval Air Station | CNN

The city of Pensacola, Florida, said it has experienced a cyber "incident" and has disconnected several city services until the issue can be resolved.

www.cnn.com

 

[allisolm]

Probably completely unrelated, but the city of Pensacola (where the shooting occurred) is now under cyberattack:

Cyberattack hits city of Pensacola. Officials aren't sure if it's related to shooting at Naval Air Station | CNN

The city of Pensacola, Florida, said it has experienced a cyber "incident" and has disconnected several city services until the issue can be resolved.

www.cnn.com

Could be unrelated but it started the same day as the shooting. That's a little more coincidence than I'm comfortable with.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Now there's word the Turd was mad at the instructor for calling him names in class.

Porn Stash is pretty tame compared to some of the names I've heard tossed around while on active duty.

 

[Paladin3]

.. That's completely arbitrary, because these rights are granted by the government and CAN be taken away. They're protected by the government, not God. The wording conveys "spirit" but doesn't actually hold any value. I guess if you wanna get misty eyed about colorful language, that's fine. This rhetoric continues to underscore that this is an emotional argument.

This may be a bit idealistic, but in a democratic society the government is only empowered to carry out the will of the people. Not to rule over the people as they personally see fit, but to carry out the will of the majority. The government works for us, not the other way around.

This is why so many pro-gun citizens value the right to keep and bare arms, because if government ever disregards the will of the people and becomes tyrannical, it is ultimately only through force or threat of force that we stand any chance of regaining control of that government and restoring it to democracy.

That may sound silly to many of you, but only because we have enjoyed almost two and a half centuries of peaceful transition of power from one democratically elected administration to the next, for which we should all be very proud. But think what a president with a demonstrated disregard for The Constitution, civil rights and the rule of law (remind you of anyone we all know and love?) might do if he had sufficient loyalty from our military AND had a disarmed populace? What could he NOT do if we had no ability to fight back?

I, for one, don't want to know, which is why the 2A was specifically written stating that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. It said nothing about the government being the source of said right, simply that they could not infringe upon it.

In practice, most gun owners understand some reasonable conditions and limits to our 2A rights are necessary. We recognize that criminal/evil/sick individuals exist. But we already have many, many of those laws on the books. Not to mention MURDER IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ILLEGAL. But we find the current efforts to restrict civilian ownership of firearms to the point we would be unable to even attempt to resist a tyrannical government, no mater how unlikely you or I may think it possible, very, very ill advised. And that is on top of the fact that the vast majority of firearms are used for hunting, recreation and self-defense without ever breaking any laws whatsoever. Or that the prohibition of any item criminals either want or can make a buck off selling has never been successful, including recent assault weapons bans.

And you can accuse me of being emotional, but when someone suggests I put myself at the mercy of any government's or criminal's good will then it upsets me a bit. And that's not nearly as irrational of an argument as is the emotional lie that law abiding gun owners are responsible for the deaths of children. Or that you have any means of disarming criminals bent on murder in a county where there are already more guns than citizens. Hell, every time more gun control is proposed gun sales skyrocket. Doesn't that right there indicate to you the will of the people? There is a perfectly democratic method to overturn the 2A. If you've got the votes then more power to you, but you don't.

Lastly, if you still want to take chances with your liberty, ask the citizens of Hong Kong how being disarmed for their own good is working out for them.

 

[brycejones]

Do we just hand foreign nationals guns in this country?

Is there no distinction, anyone can own any gun at any time?

You realize rights apply regardless of citizenship status right?

 

[Paladin3]

How is the right to own firearms a "natural" right? Did God give it to us, or was that evolution?

To answer your question specifically, I don't believe in God. And evolution is pretty much a proven fact, or at least a very much accepted and recognized theory according to rather extensive scientific evidence.

IMHO, the right of the law abiding citizen to keep and bare arms is derived from the fact that those arms exist, are legal, and, most importantly, are possessed by those who would seek to do the law-abiding harm. It is immoral to deprive the law-abiding of the very best defensive tools that the lawless plan to use against them, unless you can otherwise guarantee to protect those individuals. Which you cannot.

But it ultimately doesn't mater where those rights come from. You and your government shall not infringe those rights as stated in our 2A. If we want to democratically come together and change the 2A then take a vote. I don't believe that will happen.

Or be satisfied with the many, many current gun control regulations we already have on file. Make the FBI and other law enforcement agencies do a better job of keeping the criminal database accurate. End the war on drugs. Start making mental health more of a priority. Stop scapegoating the law-abiding by blaming them for the criminal actions of the criminal/sick/evil folks who you have no simple plan to control. Heck, teach and love your children more so they don't resort to violence to solve their problems when there are many other more healthy options for doing so.

 

[Paladin3]

Do we just hand foreign nationals guns in this country?

Is there no distinction, anyone can own any gun at any time?

My understanding is that a legal resident alien in the country has the same rights to own a gun as any other citizen. They can buy a gun if they pass the background check. And anyone with the money can buy a gun illegally.

 

[Paladin3]

According to the NRA and the Reich he had every right to own a firearm up until he started shooting people.

If he passed the background check and many other restrictions already on the books, absolutely. That's how a free society work and I am damn happy about that. Or do you want a government suspending constitutional rights without due process? Prosecuting people for future crime and such?

You can't even debate gun control or gun rights honestly if you are going to stick to this ludicrous assumption that gun owner = murderer. The simple facts tell us that is a lie.

 

[kage69]

Porn Stash is pretty tame compared to some of the names I've heard tossed around while on active duty.

Neither one of those words is a curse or body part, talk about your overreactions.

While in Pensacola, on several occasions I had pilots from Bahrain, Sa'udi Arabia and the UAE come up to me, and in very nervous and broken English ask where they could the find the naked woman place.

Sweating like a baptist minister caught in a porn shop juuuuust over the state line, every one of them.




I do miss that beach. And the BBQ.

 

[Paladin3]

Can someone please explain to me how a foreign National was able to go to a gun show and buy a gun from a dude........legally......

Well, if you buy a gun from an FFL gun dealer then they must conduct a background check to approve of the sale. If he bought it from a private sell, someone who does not regularly sell guns, say grandpa getting selling off a rifle he no longer needs, then so long as the person is a resident of that state and proves their identity with government issued ID then there is no background check necessary so long as the seller has no reasonable suspicion that the buyer intends to commit a crime.

This is not a loophole, but a compromise that was agreed to when the background check laws were passed. It allows a citizen to occasionally sell of a firearm they no longer want without having to pay for the licence and/or extra fees to involve a FFL dealer, which sometimes can exceed the cost of the firearm. Anyone selling firearms regularly or for profit at a gun show or via any other method must hold an FFL dealer licence and follow the background check procedure.

Again, it's not a loophole, it's the equivalent of saying you don't have to be a dealership and buy a business licence to sell your personal automobile. But if you sell a few cars a month as a side business you do. And it was part of the compromise to keep things fair when the background check laws were introduced.

 

[Paladin3]

The NRA and the Reich hate most gun laws.

And a number of anti-gun folks won't stop until there is a 100% ban on all civilian gun ownership. I'm at least somewhat satisfied that the two oppose each other and we can remain somewhere in the middle.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well, if you buy a gun from an FFL gun dealer then they must conduct a background check to approve of the sale. If he bought it from a private sell, someone who does not regularly sell guns, say grandpa getting selling off a rifle he no longer needs, then so long as the person is a resident of that state and proves their identity with government issued ID then there is no background check necessary so long as the seller has no reasonable suspicion that the buyer intends to commit a crime.

This is not a loophole, but a compromise that was agreed to when the background check laws were passed. It allows a citizen to occasionally sell of a firearm they no longer want without having to pay for the licence and/or extra fees to involve a FFL dealer, which sometimes can exceed the cost of the firearm. Anyone selling firearms regularly or for profit at a gun show or via any other method must hold an FFL dealer licence and follow the background check procedure.

Again, it's not a loophole, it's the equivalent of saying you don't have to be a dealership and buy a business licence to sell your personal automobile. But if you sell a few cars a month as a side business you do. And it was part of the compromise to keep things fair when the background check laws were introduced.

Why is a foreign national getting a hunting license that then allows him to buy a pistol that would never be used for hunting?

 

[Paladin3]

Any "right" set forth in the Constitution can be changed by a process set forth in that same document. Tomorrow, we could in theory pass an amendment to nullify the First Amendment. The Weimar constitution granted certain rights. Hitler removed them with the stroke of a pen. What rights were conferred by man can be taken away by man.

Jefferson used the language of "creator" because it was how people spoke in that age. But he believed in a non-interventionist God, so it seems unlikely he believed that any rights were conferred by God. He probably used the word creator to emphasize what he saw as the importance of these legal rights. But it has created the impression among many people that somehow we're born with these rights and they can't be taken away, which is false.

And to illustrate that this discussion isn't about gun control per se, I would also point out that I disagree with liberals claiming that healthcare is a right. Because it isn't a right unless we decide to make it one, and we haven't done that yet.

Agreed, pretty much. But where does the power to assert or deny any right stem from? FORCE! Force, violence and the means to do it are the ultimate power.

We have become civilized and collectively agreed that we put force away and instead adopt a set of laws that represent what is right for both the individual and society as a whole. That's why we consider ourselves CIVILIZED. We still have those who refuse to play nice according to society's democratically set laws, which is why we need police and the executive branch to use FORCE if necessary to compel compliance. And this system works okay the majority of the time. (We can debate the efficacy and morality of law enforcement and prisons in our society at a later time.)

Still, even though it normally works, it's folly to dream we can relax and give up our individual and collective rights to use FORCE if it becomes absolutely necessary. Whether it be to protect ourselves from a criminal or a tyrannical government (or put holes in a target or a tasty animal) we need to retain that ultimate power to use FORCE or we put our very existence at the mercy of those who refuse to disarm and are more than willing to use FORCE against us.

 

[Paladin3]

Any "right" set forth in the Constitution can be changed by a process set forth in that same document. Tomorrow, we could in theory pass an amendment to nullify the First Amendment. The Weimar constitution granted certain rights. Hitler removed them with the stroke of a pen. What rights were conferred by man can be taken away by man.

Jefferson used the language of "creator" because it was how people spoke in that age. But he believed in a non-interventionist God, so it seems unlikely he believed that any rights were conferred by God. He probably used the word creator to emphasize what he saw as the importance of these legal rights. But it has created the impression among many people that somehow we're born with these rights and they can't be taken away, which is false.

And to illustrate that this discussion isn't about gun control per se, I would also point out that I disagree with liberals claiming that healthcare is a right. Because it isn't a right unless we decide to make it one, and we haven't done that yet.

While I don't care if health care is a "right," it is something any compassionate society should provide for all it's members. Any civilization that won't has no right to call itself civilized.

 

[Paladin3]

So how did a foreigner get a hunting license that allowed him to buy a gun.
I thought foreigners didn’t have the same constitutional rights? What benefit is there to allowing foreigners hunting rights? We now know the risk.

A bit of GoogleFu does wonders for the soul and educates one on current U.S. gun and hunting laws. And just because a right is abused criminally is not a reason to deprive those who use said right legally and safely of it. You have to provide evidence that doing so will actually accomplish your goal while not being an undue burden upon the law-abiding.

Don't you know how these things work? I've sat on the roadside while I mother said goodbye to the body of her son who had just died in a car accident. At that moment of emotion and pain she wished cars had never been invented. I understood her emotion, but that doesn't mean I agreed with her.

 

[Paladin3]

Because 2A is for everyone, including terrorists.

Until we have at least some evidence that they are terrorists or otherwise break the law, and assuming they fulfill all other legal requirements of gun ownership, yes, it is. Only a fool would want it any other way. Google "due process."

 

[Fanatical Meat]

A bit of GoogleFu does wonders for the soul and educates one on current U.S. gun and hunting laws. And just because a right is abused criminally is not a reason to deprive those who use said right legally and safely of it. You have to provide evidence that doing so will actually accomplish your goal while not being an undue burden upon the law-abiding.

Don't you know how these things work? I've sat on the roadside while I mother said goodbye to the body of her son who had just died in a car accident. At that moment of emotion and pain she wished cars had never been invented. I understood her emotion, but that doesn't mean I agreed with her.

How would presenting an ID to get a hunting license produce an undue burden on hunters?

 

[Paladin3]

This, of course, only means something to people who think the constitution was set forth by God. You can get hung up on it all day long, but it's going in the direction of believers will believe whatever they want to, facts be damned. Kinda like how the Bible was written by men, but it's men who were under the influence of God and he wrote through them.

"God isn't real" is just playing dumb, that one made me lol...so thanks for that. Can't prove a negative? That means you're dumb!! neener neener neener!

The Constitution and all laws are only possible if there is the ultimate threat of force behind them. Otherwise it is just a bunch of wind to those would would ignore them. Allowing only one group to have the power to exert force gives them the power to decide what the laws are. Those who surrender the ability to use force and exercise power will eventually find themselves slaves or worse. Unless you are foolish enough believe the wisdom, goodwill and benevolence of those in power are endless.

Anyone here that stupid? Or are you delusional enough to believe that because it will be only your team capable of wielding that power that everything will be fine?

 

[Paladin3]

Why is a foreign national getting a hunting license that then allows him to buy a pistol that would never be used for hunting?

I don't know the law in every state, but I am unaware of one that ties the ability to own a gun to getting a hunting licence first. Most states do require gun safety training and hunter safety training as part of the hunting licencing procedure. If that state requires gun safety training before buying a gun, they may accept a hunting licence as proof of such.

But there is no requirement in the US that you can only own a gun suitable for hunting, and AR platform rifles and even semi-auto handguns are often used for hunting if the caliber is suitable for the particular game. Some hunters take deer with 10mm or .40 caliber pistols if legal in their state. And small game is often legal to hunt with all the way down to .22 caliber pistols.

I am puzzled by your comment regarding ID required to get a hunting licence being an undue burden. Obviously it's not whether a citizen or legal alien. It's only an undue burden to voting, IIRC.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The Constitution and all laws are only possible if there is the ultimate threat of force behind them. Otherwise it is just a bunch of wind to those would would ignore them. Allowing only one group to have the power to exert force gives them the power to decide what the laws are. Those who surrender the ability to use force and exercise power will eventually find themselves slaves or worse. Unless you are foolish enough believe the wisdom, goodwill and benevolence of those in power are endless.

Anyone here that stupid? Or are you delusional enough to believe that because it will be only your team capable of wielding that power that everything will be fine?

Maybe God will smite those who violate those God given rights, lol. How dare someone not believe!