Jump to content
thewhyteboar

Mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, CA

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

A civilian militia is no longer necessary or capable of protecting a free society. Since it is not necessary the right to bear arms is not needed 

 

I really don't know what I can say to be clearer about the fact that while I don't personally disagree with that, that it doesn't invalidate the Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I don't know who exactly was trying to negate the second amendment here... it sure wasn't me.

 

Everyone who is saying "hurr durr well regulated militia".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

So is the right to murder someone.

 

Is it a right (natural or otherwise) once you infringe on someone else's right to life? 

 

The right to bear arms is a natural right because the right to self defense is one of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Everyone who is saying "hurr durr well regulated militia".

 

And here we go... suggesting that our gun laws could be better regulated automatically means "Dere takin' away muh guns" :|

 

Carry on, I'm tapping out early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Is it a right (natural or otherwise) once you infringe on someone else's right to life? 

 

The right to bear arms is a natural right because the right to self defense is one of course. 

Permabanned by @SFLUFAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Is it a right (natural or otherwise) once you infringe on someone else's right to life? 

 

The right to bear arms is a natural right because the right to self defense is one of course. 

 

There are no such things as rights, only what you can enforce through violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

There are no such things as rights, only what you can enforce through violence.

 

wEQXoMnr_400x400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Is it a right (natural or otherwise) once you infringe on someone else's right to life? 

 

The right to bear arms is a natural right because the right to self defense is one of course. 

 

So, two questions then:

 

1. Can you defend yourself without a weapon?

2. Does self-defense entail a certain type of weaponry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

So, two questions then:

 

1. Can you defend yourself without a weapon?

2. Does self-defense entail a certain type of weaponry?

He can’t answer those because he knows the mental gymnastics needed.  It’s why he didn’t answer my above questions.  It’s where the logic (or lack thereof) breaks down.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

I really don't know what I can say to be clearer about the fact that while I don't personally disagree with that, that it doesn't invalidate the Second Amendment.

It's basically "because of this need]

then this item is allowed. Once the need not longer exists the item is no longer allowed. If it was truly unrestricted, then there would not be a point in rationalizing it. The first amendment does not have a rationalization clause. It just is. Same for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ..and honestly I stopped checking after that. 

 

If the clause is meaningless they would not have included it. The 2nd ammendment would just be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

And if you believe the right to bear arms absolute, despite qualification statements, then you have to admit they have already been infringed. There are a slew of arms you cannot own or purchase without long prison sentences, many of which ours and other governments are allowed to own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

If the clause is meaningless they would not have included it.

 

The entire point of the article I linked to is that what you're arguing is based on your misinterpretation of an outmoded writing style.

 

Quote

 

Some people suggest the justification clause provides a built-in expiration date for the right.  So long as a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (or so long as the right to keep and bear arms contributes to a well-regulated militia, or so long as the militia is in fact well-regulated), the argument goes, the people have a right to keep and bear arms; but once the circumstances change and the necessity disappears, so does the right.

 

This reading seems at odds with the text:  The Amendment doesn't say "so long as a militia is necessary"; it says "being necessary."  Such a locution usually means the speaker is giving a justification for his command, not limiting its duration.  If anything, it might require the courts to operate on the assumption that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, since that's what the justification clause asserts.

 

But the unsoundness of the "temporary right" reading becomes even starker when one considers the other state constitutional provisions.  Consider, for instance, the New Hampshire Venue Article:

 

Quote

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

 

Today few believe that the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is essential to life, liberty, and property.  Perhaps this was so when most jurors were expected to rely on their personal knowledge about the facts or about the characters of the defendants and the witnesses, when travel was very difficult, or when cultural divides were primarily geographical. Today, though, it's much more common to hear insistence on a trial being moved outside the vicinity where the crime was committed, on the theory that jurors in the area of the crime would be unduly inflamed against the defendant. Even those who support local trials would probably only say that local trials are helpful, not "essential"; and even those who stress the importance of trial by jurors who come from a demographically similar place wouldn't care much about trial in the same county.

 

We wouldn't, however, interpret the "is so essential" language in the Venue Article as meaning "so long as it is believed by judges to be essential."  Bills of Rights are born of mistrust of government:  The government is barred from prosecuting cases in another county because of the fear that some future government may not be attentive enough to "the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen."  The provision's enactors doubtless contemplated that there'd be disagreement about the value of local trials. It seems most likely that they mentioned the value of local trials in the constitution to show their commitment to this position, not to leave the judiciary -- itself a branch of the government -- carte blanche to conclude otherwise, and thus eliminate the operative clause's check on government power.  The trial-in-the-county provision must remain in effect whether or not a judge thinks it still serves the purpose; the provision was enacted by the people, and it's up to the people, not judges, to decide whether it's obsolete.

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that the same people that freak out at the concept of gun control don't freak out when we want to place sanctions on countries that have nuclear weapons.

 

After all, a nuclear weapon doesn't kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarSolo said:

It's funny that the same people that freak out at the concept of gun control don't freak out when we want to place sanctions on countries that have nuclear weapons.

 

After all, a nuclear weapon doesn't kill people.

They have a natural right to artificially created implements of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borderline shooter posted to social media during rampage, 'life is boring so why not?'

 

"It's too bad I won't get to see all the illogical and pathetic reasons people will put in my mouth as to why I did it. Fact is I had no reason to do it, and I just thought... f***it, life is boring so why not?...I hope people call me insane (two smiley face emoji)...wouldn't that just be a big ball of irony? Yeah... I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is 'hopes and prayers'... or 'keep you in my thoughts'... every time... and wonder why these keep happening... (two more smiley face emoji)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

The right to bear arms is a natural right because the right to self defense is one of course. 

The right to defend yourself may be a "natural right" but it doesn't say anything about the means with which you're providing said self-defense.

 

Do you have a natural right to defend yourself with a rocket launcher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defending oneself isn't a "natural right" (not that those things exist to begin with) in the least.

 

Defending oneself is simply a basic instinct ingrained within us through evolution - nothing more, nothing less.  Every living creature will do the same thing when threatened - there's no need to invoke the fallacy of "natural rights" to justify or explain it.

 

Locke ascribed metaphysical characteristics to something that is nothing more than base-level evolutionary coding of species preservation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

Borderline shooter posted to social media during rampage, 'life is boring so why not?'

 

"It's too bad I won't get to see all the illogical and pathetic reasons people will put in my mouth as to why I did it. Fact is I had no reason to do it, and I just thought... f***it, life is boring so why not?...I hope people call me insane (two smiley face emoji)...wouldn't that just be a big ball of irony? Yeah... I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is 'hopes and prayers'... or 'keep you in my thoughts'... every time... and wonder why these keep happening... (two more smiley face emoji)"

Not that he's wrong....but geeze

 

Why do I get a feeling that with a motive like "fuck it, why not" we're going to find out he's a GTA/COD gamer, and that will be the medias focus once that tidbit comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Chris- said:

 

So, two questions then:

 

1. Can you defend yourself without a weapon? Yes. I've done it several times in my life, without a gun

2. Does self-defense entail a certain type of weaponry? According to our laws, yes, because despite the absolute "right to bear arms", there are certain weapons (guns) that civilians are prohibited from having .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×