crickets...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Air force dropped the ball never reported his criminal record to the FBI so it was not in his NCIC NICS check. Hard to cover that up

Yes - I saw that since. TX denied him a LTC on a prior application

[Slipknot]

Heartbreaking, the whole situation



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=B4HEchh0XD8

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

And what year is it now?

Who exactly is empowered to decide that certain clauses of the Constitution have reached an expiration date and get thrown in the dumpster?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

To Detbuch,

I'd never suggest we don't learn from the past.

What have you learned from the past?

I'd also say evolution always wins it's undeniable, to live in the past without change in order to evolve is just ignorant.

Evolution doesn't require change. It is change. Changes and their direction depend on the mix. Mass shootings are evolutionary results. Dictatorships are evolutionary results. Revolutions are evolutionary actions. These are all the results of conflicts and positive or negative interactions. For evolution to occur, there must be those conflicts, interactions, wars, among the mix of things. And the things must be of some fundamental nature. For there to be change, there has to be a foundation from which change occurs. When there is a change in the foundation, new species "evolve." So far, humans, as we know them, are fundamentally the same as in the Founders time; are the same as in the annals of recorded history. We have not evolved into something else yet. The notion that we can regulate out of existence conflict, war, or interactions we disapprove of, is what's ignorant. If we could, that would be the end of evolution. It is in our fundamental nature to resist regulation that stifles our individual portion of that spectrum of human possibility.

That's why the Constitution is such an evolutionary friendly foundation of government. It allows the greatest scope of freedom to evolve in various directions with the least friction and destruction among individual differences. Of course, it is evidently a portion of our nature to protect ourselves from intrusion into the freedoms it provides. Yet there are those who impose that portion of their human nature which seeks personal satisfaction on others against their will. Some, even to the point of ruling nations. Some, just warring on neighbors. Government restriction against people's ability to protect themselves against either type of war, stifles the freedom of the many to evolve in their preferred and individual way in order to stifle the license of a few. It is anti-evolutionary. The greater the restrictions are in scope and power, the less "peaceful" can there be evolution.

Changing the foundation of the Constitution by interpreting it to mean other than what it does, and to mean that freedom (not license) is limited, restricts peaceful evolution, and evolves into adversary conflict, which can evolve into more authoritarian, less evolutionary government.


I only suggest that current events might suggest arms of mass destruction might be better off left in the hands of the military. You suggest I'm fearful, yet you want your AR's to be ready to militia up if the government goes dictator on you; I don't fear that at all you own that fear.

I see. You don't fear anything. You just make suggestions. Me too. I suggest that current events indeed suggest that the world, as always, is a dangerous place. And I suggest that politicians like Schumer, Hillary, Sanders, Warren (who aren't going to turn limit themselves), haven't made it less dangerous, nor can they. You can suggest yourself into whatever suggestions will save a few lives. Although, I haven't heard any suggestions from you how to do that, it sounds pitiful enough to be worthy of great suggestion.


Modern day militia really; that's the argument you own and as usual it's the final 2nd amendment argument; heard it and read it on every thread that's similar. It's the same old argument, 2nd amendment, we have the right, I get it; but is it reasonable today?

Yes. It is reasonable, and more so, rational. And the militia meant (still does in spite of authoritarians attempt to make it a formal government unit) is the people. And the same old argument is the entire Constitution and freedom vs despotism be it soft or dictatorial.

And the argument you own is some general notion that today is different than yesterday because of evolution. No reason or rationale other than some undefined evolution into some undefined difference.

It made 110% sense then and there, I'd be standing and giving the founding fathers a standing ovation for those 27 words, but times change and only idiots don't accept that fact.

In what fundamental way has human nature changed? "Times" constantly change. So fast now that government, law, that has to suit constant change would not be possible. Laws and systems of government which are fundamentally based on "times" is for "idiots."

Please don't insult me by giving me that BS argument that the only reasonable change is to ban all guns, what a crock of crap that statement is. I have no issue with guns, or the right to bear them, but if the nut job didn't have access to the AR type rifle, how many lives would have been lost or saved.

Don't insult me by misquoting me. I said "The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save THOUSANDS of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. So far, the THOUSANDS of gun deaths in this country aren't caused by using AR types. Most "nut jobs" use hand guns. Or maybe you don't consider criminal killers to be "nut jobs." You only have an issue with nut jobs and AR's. The thousands of more lives taken by hand guns or non AR's are just not as much of a problem as the AR types for you. We shouldn't, therefor, ban hand guns. Just ban AR types.

That sounds like a "crock of crap" as you so nicely put it.

If you think you and a hand full of your friends armed with AR assault rifles in your town and the next one over are going to make a bit of difference, then I want some of what you are smoking. The fact that you actually think that will come to be necessary makes you the guy with the fear factor and frankly i choose to have a much more optimistic view on where we as a society can go.

OK. So you don't fear AR's. You just worry about them. As in when you said "I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger."

Of course, there is no need to worry enough about someone with life changing experiences in a dark place having an illegal handgun, at least not to the point of banning handguns.

And what makes you special because you have an "optimistic view on where we as a society can go." What makes you think that I don't have an optimistic view of where it CAN go. Sure, I have an optimistic view of where it can go. I'm optimistic about some of the ways it is now going. You said "Do I like our government today, not in the least," There's a lot about it that I don't like. But I still like its foundation more than any other.



Don't mix my opinion of Trump with this argument, do I agree with the way Trump is governing, absolutely not; but that has nothing to do with this thread.

You said I was afraid of big government. Trump is the President of big government. How is your concern, or worry, (since you say you don't fear) about the damage to the country that he will supposedly do, how is that concern not akin to what you accuse me of in this thread?

Don't mix my believe in on environmental changes being a larger threat then many believe; again it has nothing to do with this thread.

Where do you get off telling me what I can mix? That was a sarcastic fictitious (on my part) take on the "numbers" killed issue that you guys keep bringing up about AR's. Don't particularly care if you didn't like it. And I made it something to do with this thread. For fun.

You fear the government and more regulations, then go do something about it, that's the wonderful thing about being an AMERICAN, we can all believe in different things and do our best to make changes by the way we vote and treat our fellow man.

You keep, ad nauseam, referring to my "fear" of something. And that you don't have fears, just suggestions, or worries, or a half full glass. I don't recall saying I feared government or regulations. That's your characterization of me. I try to have rational discussions regarding our system of government. I try to be very reasonable. I don't impose emotional arguments. I back up what I say with historical facts. With what Progressives have actually said and admitted re our constitutional system.

OK. So none of what I have presented makes sense to you. OK. You just believe things could not go in a direction of all powerful government, even though if you read the actual documents of what the founders of Progressivism in this country proposed for governance, which I presented in a factually cited manner, you will see that in effect, and words, that is exactly what they said. That government should not be constrained by the Constitution, but have the unhampered power to do whatever it thinks is right and good. OK. You don't notice how much power the federal government has given itself through the use of unconstitutional regulatory agencies and Court decisions which they admitted were tortuous twisting of the Constitutional original meanings in order to do as they wish. OK. Fine. I accept that--with sorrow, not fear. But I try, as you tell me, to do something about it by having discussions, not just on this forum. Some people understand. Some don't. There seems to be some recognition by more people now of what is happening.

But, as you say. Evolution always wins. I wouldn't put it that way, but I know what you mean. If we evolve into the State in which the authoritarian direction is taking us, then that will be the "winner." But, it can't rationally be denied that it is our evolutionary direction if a course correction is not made. Where we will go from there, only "evolution" will tell us.

My glass as always is more than half full.

Good for you.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

A good guy with a gun stopped a madman with a gun.


Horrible atrocity that could have been worse. I say good for the good guy with the AR-15 for shooting back and killing the guy. In case you don't know if you were spoon fed the narrative the news is trying to give us that it was suicide because more firearms were in his car, the guy bled out from his wounds while the 2 good guys waited for police.

When you take on the responsibility of gun ownership, you are obsessive about locks Bob, no need for a reminder to check locks, I suggest arm yourself. The more people that are armed, the better. This isn't the first mass shooting and won't be the last sadly, it is just the latest. And a horrible one at that.

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by wdmso

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

Had that good guy not stopped the shooter how many more would have been killed ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Had that good guy not stopped the shooter how many more would have been killed ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

That's right, but some dopes don't seem to mind. They glorify these events to suit their agenda. Do you actually think he was going home to read a book instead of going on to slaughter innocent people which was happening without resistance? Many folks owe their life to a man with a gun at the wrong place at the right time. To imply otherwise is the act of a deranged individual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Who exactly is empowered to decide that certain clauses of the Constitution have reached an expiration date and get thrown in the dumpster?

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed. The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test. Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

The new liberal tactic is to attack those who publicly call for prayer. Especially in Hollywood, it's nice to see the liberals stop raping each other long enough to attack people of faith. Are the liberals trying to lose more and more of middle America?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

Read your post again please. Only a die hard liberal, would fail to see a silver lining, when an ordinary citizen hears a mass shooting, and runs towards it, in this case without stopping to put shoes on. As the shooter fled, the hero flagged down a motorist and said "we must go after him". Only a dedicated liberal could so completely fail to be moved by such an act of love.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please shut up

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

That's right, but some dopes don't seem to mind. They glorify these events to suit their agenda. Do you actually think he was going home to read a book instead of going on to slaughter innocent people which was happening without resistance? Many folks owe their life to a man with a gun at the wrong place at the right time. To imply otherwise is the act of a deranged individual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes I ask myself...self...if caught in this situation are my odds of survival better if I and others around me are armed or unarmed?

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

didn't take long


they have all ready found a silver lining 1 guy shot back and saved the day ... sadly 26 people were all ready killed but the'll run with it anyway saying it could have been worse.. Really !!

ABSOLUTELY really , it is disrespectful to think otherwise

the killer was shooting those already down in the body to be sure they were dead, also shooting cell phones so they could not call for help. One woman shot 4 times in the leg was about to be next when she heard shots from the hero. Her prayers were answered, lucky for her. The other 20 hurt would have been killed so maybe it bothers you that the police were not able to get there faster than a good guy with a gun. The guy had a vest on and was ready for more shooting possibly with police so don't try to say the good guy did not stop many more from dying because that is insane.

Your massive ego is getting in the way of the truth.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

please shut up

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.

It's embarrassing to me when people on my side act like these rights are either perfectly absolute, or they don't exist at all. Let the liberals wallow in that kind of extremism, we are supposed to be the home of common sense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed. The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test. Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The founders, including Madison and Jefferson who were reputed to be at the meeting which banned guns from their campus, considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights. Common sense had nothing to do with it.

As far as nukes would have gone, the Founders would not have given wealthy people, or any other class of people or individuals, the right to destroy the property of others in times of peace. In times of war, all bets were probably off.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The founders, including Madison and Jefferson who were reputed to be at the meeting which banned guns from their campus, considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights. Common sense had nothing to do with it.

As far as nukes would have gone, the Founders would not have given wealthy people, or any other class of people or individuals, the right to destroy the property of others in times of peace. In times of war, all bets were probably off.

"considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights"

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

"Common sense had nothing to do with it."

Common sense is why they thought the campus ban was a good idea.

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms. What we don't want, is a scenario where bad guys have guns and good guys don't. That citizen possibly saved a lot of lives.

In my humble opinion, we'd be better off if bump stocks and high capacity magazines, had never been made available to the public. Now that they are out there, I don't know how you ever get that horse back into the barn. But I wish we could do it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"considered the Bill of Rights an absolute limit on the federal government's ability to abridge those rights"

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court seems to have imposed limits on how far the states can impose limits.

"Common sense had nothing to do with it."

Common sense is why they thought the campus ban was a good idea.

I was referring to the Founders writing of the Bill of Rights. Common sense wasn't what drove them to include that Bill. It was the uncommon foresight to protect the people from tyranny.

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms.

He used an AR 15 "assault weapon." It takes comparable firepower to fight back against those who have such firepower. Think "reason for the 2A . . . oh and its not about hunting or sport shooting."

What we don't want, is a scenario where bad guys have guns and good guys don't. That citizen possibly saved a lot of lives.

In my humble opinion, we'd be better off if bump stocks and high capacity magazines, had never been made available to the public. Now that they are out there, I don't know how you ever get that horse back into the barn. But I wish we could do it.

One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. Huxley showed a way to do that in his Brave New World.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. Huxley showed a way to do that in his Brave New World.

"One way to do it is to totally control society and all those who people it. "

Yes that's one way. It's also a silly caricature of what people like me are actually saying. I'm pretty sure I'm not in favor of totalitarianism. Again, it's not necessarily one extreme or the other, and you rarely resort to such tactics. Banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines, seriously seems Orwellian to you? Not to me.

"The Supreme Court seems to have imposed limits on how far the states can impose limits."

Absolutely. And I want people in the mold of Scalia, deciding what limits are OK, and what is going too far. All I'm talking about, are the tools that make mass murder easier. It's sad to me that we (as a nation) can't come close to an agreement on that.

"He used an AR 15 "assault weapon." It takes comparable firepower to fight back against those who have such firepower."

We need to prevent them from having such easy access to that firepower, to begin with. That's one of the points of this.

In this case, it looks like we have a sufficient law in place, but the idiots in the Air Force didn't enforce it the way they were supposed to. From what I understand, the assault that got him discharged (he assaulted a baby and his wife) should have precluded him from getting any kind of firearm. We dropped the ball, and paid a massive price.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In this case, it looks like we have a sufficient law in place, but the idiots in the Air Force didn't enforce it the way they were supposed to. From what I understand, the assault that got him discharged (he assaulted a baby and his wife) should have precluded him from getting any kind of firearm. We dropped the ball, and paid a massive price.

so we should legislate more opportunities to drop the ball?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.

your entire "statement of fact(s)" is based on something that you stumbled across in a google search that you think supports whatever point you are attempting to make...and so you keep repeating it no matter how many times it's pointed out that you are in error....it's very odd behavior....I'm confident that you've never actually read anything that Jefferson and Madison said and wrote regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nature of rights, States rights, freedom, liberty, role of government...hint ....hint...it's voluminous...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

so we should legislate more opportunities to drop the ball?

See, you're doing it again, you are making the argument that unless a law is perfect, it serves no purpose. I think that argument is flawed.

OJ got away with murder, because the system failed in spectacular fashion. So because such laws are not fool-proof, we should do away with laws making it illegal to stab people to death?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

your entire "statement of fact(s)" is based on something that you stumbled across in a google search that you think supports whatever point you are attempting to make...and so you keep repeating it no matter how many times it's pointed out that you are in error....it's very odd behavior....I'm confident that you've never actually read anything that Jefferson and Madison said and wrote regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nature of rights, States rights, freedom, liberty, role of government...hint ....hint...it's voluminous...

No, see, you keep saying again and again that I am in error. That doesn't make it so. Some of the founding fathers were fine with banning guns on campus. I therefore conclude that they never intended the second amendment be absolute. Along the same lines, I have freedom of speech, but I cannot threaten someone or yell "fire", which is (I think) further evidence that limitations on the bill of rights, are not necessarily unconstitutional. I think I make a compelling case. Telling me to shut up, isn't refuting what I am saying. That's what liberals do when they have no cards to play.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See, you're doing it again, you are making the argument that unless a law is perfect, it serves no purpose. I didn't say that...which law are you proposing? the one that didn't work because the ball was dropped or something else I think that argument is flawed.

OJ got away with murder, because the system failed in spectacular fashion. So because such laws are not fool-proof, we should do away with laws making it illegal to stab people to death?

by your logic we should make laws doing away with the type of knife OJ used because the system failed to prosecute

btw...it wasn't the law that was not fool proof....it was the jury that was fooled

[Got Stripers]

Like I said before I have no problem with guns, yes I have issues as I'm sure many do, of illegal handguns getting into the wrong hands; but not legal sale of guns to anyone who can qualify. I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had. Same goes for rifles, shotguns and anything else needed to pursue your passion for hunting and shooting.

If we take the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in order to form a militia to defend or defeat a tyrannical government, I think the list needs to include far more than your over the gun counter AR rifle. First the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population might be really good stuff for that next science fiction movie, but that's all it is fiction. Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long. But lets assume for a minute that it actually a possibility, what percentage of the civilian population are armed and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military? Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

WOW, I can't wait for the book and then the movie, I think it's going to be a dynamic read and exciting movie

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, see, you keep saying again and again that I am in error. That doesn't make it so. Some of the founding fathers were fine with banning guns on campus. I therefore conclude that they never intended the second amendment be absolute. Along the same lines, I have freedom of speech, but I cannot threaten someone or yell "fire", which is (I think) further evidence that limitations on the bill of rights, are not necessarily unconstitutional. I think I make a compelling case. Telling me to shut up, isn't refuting what I am saying. That's what liberals do when they have no cards to play.

When the big and emotional assault on Second Amendment rights is being argued on the basis of federal power, is demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion.

Otherwise, if you keep plying some unspecified, general limitations on those rights, it gives fuel to the fire of calls for some unspecified power of the federal government to regulate Bill of Rights freedoms. And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. Does that sound reasonable to you?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Like I said before I have no problem with guns, yes I have issues as I'm sure many do, of illegal handguns getting into the wrong hands; but not legal sale of guns to anyone who can qualify. I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had. Same goes for rifles, shotguns and anything else needed to pursue your passion for hunting and shooting.

Why should you be allowed to act on a passion for hunting and shooting if the tools used for your passion can kill thousands of people?

BTW the Texan you refer to used an AR 15 not a handgun.

If we take the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in order to form a militia to defend or defeat a tyrannical government, I think the list needs to include far more than your over the gun counter AR rifle.

The Second Amendment already does that.

First the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population might be really good stuff for that next science fiction movie, but that's all it is fiction.

So because you say it is fiction, it must therefor be fiction. History be damned.

Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long.

As you might say, "today's society" has evolved (I use that in a metaphorical way, not a scientific way--even metaphorically, mutated might be better than evolved). Has "evolved" from a society that saw possibilities, underscored by actual history, to one that is encouraged to ignore history so is not capable of seeing possibilities. And not even being able to see how powerful and restrictive its government has actually become. And which is spoon fed the diet of fearing each other, but never to suspect a government which steadily separates itself from society, becoming more its master than its servant. And a society which willingly dons a hat which it can no longer see is made of tin foil.

But lets assume for a minute that it actually a possibility, what percentage of the civilian population are armed and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military?

If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified.

But if the people still hold and protect constitutional rights, and if so too does the military, then there will be no need to take arms against the military. It would be the federal government, not the people, that would be powerless except to do the people's will and to stay within the bounds that the Constitution affords it.

The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

But if the ifs I noted above occur, then yes, the scenario you describe is possible. That you think it isn't possible implies to me that the scope of possibilities you envision is unusually, or deficiently, narrow.

Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

WOW, I can't wait for the book and then the movie, I think it's going to be a dynamic read and exciting movie

Those movies have already been made. The books were best sellers, and the movies were box office hits.

BTW, this notion that we have evolved and the Constitution must evolve with us is either stupid on its face, or is just ignorant, or is scientifically sounding propaganda meant to persuade us of its merits.

It typically takes several thousands, if not millions of years for the process of evolution to bring about a fundamental change in biological matter and in the most complex "living" things, including humans. The notion that we have fundamentally evolved in a span of 200 years is not science. Nor even logic. Certainly not fact. Humans are fundamentally the same now as they were in the Founder's time. The Constitutional framework is as relevant now to human nature as it was in their time. It, indeed, was founded on that very human nature that we still entirely possess.

Our "times" may change, but the change is merely mode and fashion, not fundamental. Modes of transportation or weaponry, or technological advances, do not fundamentally change what we are. Our passions, desires, motivations, egos, ability to love or hate, to love beauty and truth or to lie and be ugly, to be good or evil, to wish to be free or be dependent, to rule or be ruled, and so forth, have not changed. And we are still the same political, social beings, or animals if you wish, who form governments which in various ways respond to what we fundamentally are. Those governments range in manner and scope from totalitarian to anarchist. The Constitution is probably the most "centrist" in that it protects individual proclivities in that broad range to function together in the freest most harmonious possible way. When you change our constitutional structure in either direction relative to the range between the totalitarian to the anarchic, you drift in either one of those directions and away from the ideological and harmonious center.

The rights which are inherent to us in the Constitution are the foundation for its existence. The powers in the Constitution which we consent to the government we form are not to create an all powerful government, but for the purpose of protecting our inherent rights. When we, for public safety, or any altruistic or dictatorial purpose, relinquish some inherent right over to expanded government power, under the pretext of public safety, we take a step in the direction of the totalitarian by restricting the vast many in order to somehow restrict the minute few. And we lessen the duty of the central government to protect our inherent rights, giving it, on the contrary, the power to replace some inherent rights with those it prescribes. And thus we begin the process of precedent to go farther and farther down that path.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

by your logic we should make laws doing away with the type of knife OJ used because the system failed to prosecute

btw...it wasn't the law that was not fool proof....it was the jury that was fooled

Like many people on your side of this issue, you aren't listening to anything I'm saying, and you certainly aren't responding to what I am saying. I said that the tools of mass murder should probably not be publicly available. I'm not sure a knife qualifies.

I'm not an advocate for regulating knives. But you most certainly said that because laws aren't fool-proof and perfect, they aren't valuable laws to have.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When the big and emotional assault on Second Amendment rights is being argued on the basis of federal power, is demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion.

Otherwise, if you keep plying some unspecified, general limitations on those rights, it gives fuel to the fire of calls for some unspecified power of the federal government to regulate Bill of Rights freedoms. And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. Does that sound reasonable to you?

"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."

Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...

"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "

Yes, that is the road to tyranny.

"Does that sound reasonable to you?"

No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But you most certainly said that because laws aren't fool-proof and perfect, they aren't valuable laws to have.

I never said that...you like to state what someone else said and then argue against it...when they never said it...it's very odd