• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

fuelair said:
Also, in Florida at least, a stupid part of the law means that she has to appear to be shooting to kill if she decides she only wants to scare the guy away. If it is obvious she was shooting to warn, the law (stupidly) assumes she must not have actually been in fear for her life and she can arrested and jailed.. I. e. Fl law means you either do shoot attacker, do not even show your weapon (brandishing), go to jail or get hurt/killed.
Click to expand...

I'd be VERY surprised to see any court ruling that mentioned people have to shoot to kill to avoid jail time ... universally people are told to shot to STOP (By firing at centre of body mass)
 
Last edited:
Psi Baba said:
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the manufacture of guns.
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the importation of guns into the country.
For that matter, nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the sale of guns either.
So go ahead bear all the arms you want!
Click to expand...

Ummm, ...

I am not quite so sure about that.

After all, the Constitution does stipulate that interstate commerce is a Federal issue, and the importation, sales, and manufacture of firearms would likely involve matters of interstate commerce and thereby involve the Federal government.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ...
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Also, in Florida at least, a stupid part of the law means that she has to appear to be shooting to kill if she decides she only wants to scare the guy away. If it is obvious she was shooting to warn, the law (stupidly) assumes she must not have actually been in fear for her life and she can arrested and jailed.. I. e. Fl law means you either do shoot attacker, do not even show your weapon (brandishing), go to jail or get hurt/killed.
Click to expand...

Apparently that has now changed.
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/06/florida-legalizes-warning-shots-to-attackers.php
 
Humm, why is it that after every Jihadist terrorist attack, liberals insist that we should not judge all Muslims because of the actions of a few, etc., etc, but that after a shooting incident, liberals insist that all guns must be confiscated and that the "gun culture" is to blame?
 
bobtaftfan said:
Humm, why is it that after every Jihadist terrorist attack, liberals insist that we should not judge all Muslims because of the actions of a few, etc., etc, but that after a shooting incident, liberals insist that all guns must be confiscated and that the "gun culture" is to blame?
Click to expand...

Because liberals are Jihadi terrorists. It's really the only conclusion the data supports.
 
bobtaftfan said:
Humm, why is it that after every Jihadist terrorist attack, liberals insist that we should not judge all Muslims because of the actions of a few, etc., etc, but that after a shooting incident, liberals insist that all guns must be confiscated and that the "gun culture" is to blame?
Click to expand...
I've never seen that demand. Do you have a source?
 
Crossbow said:
Ummm, ...

I am not quite so sure about that.

After all, the Constitution does stipulate that interstate commerce is a Federal issue, and the importation, sales, and manufacture of firearms would likely involve matters of interstate commerce and thereby involve the Federal government.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ...
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
 
Psi Baba said:
Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
Click to expand...

I think he thinks you were talking about state regulations prohibiting manufacture/sale of guns. If that were the case, then it would run into commerce clause problems.

It sounded to me like you were talking federal level regulations, which don't run afoul of commerce clause, but would fail for other reasons I described above. The 2nd amendment is meaningless if it can be so trivially circumvented, and the courts are not going to (and should not) rule that way.
 
I wanted to argue just one issue. . . .That is with psychological testing.
They have become as much as anything tests in political correctness.
I had to take a psychological test for my job years ago. I am armed at my job by the way.
One question was my position on drugs. I was honest and I answered that I had never used any illegal drugs however I support the decriminalization of Cannabis. Bing, I failed it. . . . .
 
Desert Fox said:
I wanted to argue just one issue. . . .That is with psychological testing.
They have become as much as anything tests in political correctness.
I had to take a psychological test for my job years ago. I am armed at my job by the way.
One question was my position on drugs. I was honest and I answered that I had never used any illegal drugs however I support the decriminalization of Cannabis. Bing, I failed it. . . . .
Click to expand...

That's not because you answered the question wrong .., it;s because your were truthful ... tests like this DEPEND on you lying ... if you do not lie you will fail :)

I had a friend fail a "water well test" and their house sale fell through ... I told her it's not because you had bad water ... they did't want to deal with anyone stupid enough to use anything but bottled water as the test sample :)
 
bobtaftfan said:
Humm, why is it that after every Jihadist terrorist attack, liberals insist that we should not judge all Muslims because of the actions of a few, etc., etc, but that after a shooting incident, liberals insist that all guns must be confiscated and that the "gun culture" is to blame?
Click to expand...

If the highlighted was actually happening, you'd have a point.

Spoiler!

It's not.
 
NoahFence said:
If the highlighted was actually happening, you'd have a point.

Spoiler!

It's not.
Click to expand...

I know liberals and progressives that advocate that. It certainly is not the whole, but we have some standard that says what position can apply to the term "liberal". How much do you need?
 
bit_pattern said:
Now I *know* you're being dishonest because you are blithely ignoring evidence that I *know* you've seen. This is the difference between opinions and feelings.
Click to expand...

Well you have to ignore that because the only victims of domestic violence who count are those who have left their abuser of course. Those who have yet to do that can safely be ignored from any such statistics.

This is cherry picking 101 people!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom