Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

Nordberg said:
And now the Ars are being used in mass murders and crimes. It made sense in the 30s and does now too. Take them off the streets and out of homes.
Other countries do not have gun shooter drills in schools. They do not have mass shootings twice a week. Can you guess why we do? Too damn many guns and way too little training and regulation.
Click to expand...

Come and try to take MY weapons out of MY home...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's because we have idiots running things. You can still own a machinegun today as well as automatic weapons. They were regulated starting in the 30's because criminals were using them to commit crimes.
Click to expand...
It is illegal to restrict or ban any gun, including any machine gun.
T. A. Gardner said:
The problem isn't automatic weapons, it is the people.
We have a large portion of our population who are fucking retards and lazy shits that live the criminal and gangster life.
Click to expand...
Define 'large portion'. Argument from randU fallacy.
T. A. Gardner said:
In the US up through about the early 70's there was much more of a gun culture in the US.
Click to expand...
There are more guns among citizens than ever right now.
T. A. Gardner said:
Shooting clubs and such were more common.
Click to expand...
They are very common today.
T. A. Gardner said:
Regulation of firearms much more lax,
Click to expand...
It is not legal to restrict or ban any gun.
T. A. Gardner said:
and the problem of their use in crimes far less.
Click to expand...
Did you forget the mobsters in the 20's, that got started due to prohibition? Did you forget the pirates in the Caribbean?

Crime has increased. A lot. Gangs are funded by prohibition laws. They are still in force. As long as some alcohol or any drug is illegal, gangs have a ready source of money. As long as there is a black market, there are gangs fighting over turf for it.
T. A. Gardner said:
The problem sense then is one of a declining social fabric and descent into mediocrity.
Click to expand...
You consider the fall of the United States 'mediocrity'? You consider the economic depression during the last few years mediocrity? You consider quite possible outbreak of WW3 mediocrity??? You consider the arson, looting, and pillaging in American cities mediocrity????

Just what does it take to get your heart started?
 
Nordberg said:
And now the Ars are being used in mass murders and crimes.
Click to expand...
Rather rarely. The favorite gun for the mass shooter, particularly school shootings, is a .22 rifle or 9mm pistol.
Nordberg said:
It made sense in the 30s and does now too. Take them off the streets and out of homes.
Click to expand...
Not legal.
Nordberg said:
Other countries do not have gun shooter drills in schools.
Click to expand...
Yes they do.
Nordberg said:
They do not have mass shootings twice a week.
Click to expand...
We don't either.
Nordberg said:
Can you guess why we do?
Click to expand...
We don't.
Nordberg said:
Too damn many guns and way too little training and regulation.
Click to expand...
You don't get to decide whether there are 'too many guns'. It is illegal to ban or restrict any gun or accessory. It is illegal to ban or restrict any kind of weapon.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The AR and other "assault rifles" are rarely used in crimes. Depending on who you want to quote, the usual figures are 2 - 12% with most being closer to 2% or less. That is, only a tiny fraction of all gun crimes are committed with rifles at all. The bulk of gun crimes are committed with pistols.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant anyway. Nothing in the Constitution specifies authority for Congress or any other government to restrict any weapon by type, action, or whether is 'scary looking'.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not true. Congress can put reasonable limits on what can be kept
Click to expand...
No, it can't. The Constitution never granted any such authority to Congress, and the Constitution specifically prohibits infringing on the right of the people to bear Arms. That applies to the States as well as the federal government.
T. A. Gardner said:
in the same manner that all "free speech" is not allowed.
Click to expand...
Congress has no authority to restrict speech in any way. See the 1st amendment.
T. A. Gardner said:
Speech that incites violence, furthers crime, and the like are restricted and can be prosecuted as one example.
Click to expand...
Congress cannot legally pass any such law. See the 1st amendment.
T. A. Gardner said:
As it stands right now, our gun laws are pretty lax on the whole.
Click to expand...
It is illegal to restrict or ban any weapon.
 
Nordberg said:
And now the Ars are being used in mass murders and crimes. It made sense in the 30s and does now too. Take them off the streets and out of homes.
Other countries do not have gun shooter drills in schools. They do not have mass shootings twice a week. Can you guess why we do? Too damn many guns and way too little training and regulation.
Click to expand...

OTOH we didn't have a federal government "vaccine" mandate. Care to take a guess as to why?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not true. Congress can put reasonable limits on what can be kept in the same manner that all "free speech" is not allowed. Speech that incites violence, furthers crime, and the like are restricted and can be prosecuted as one example.

As it stands right now, our gun laws are pretty lax on the whole.

Click to expand...

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. What news ones would stop the criminal use of firearms? Seems the more laws they enact, the more those laws are broken and crime rates increase. More proof that making more laws doesn't work.
 
Guille said:
No. You just argued in favor of thought crime prosecution. You're not what you think you are.
Click to expand...

No, I argued in favor of actual acts. For instance, using "fighting words."

Fighting words are words meant to incite violence such that they may not be protected free speech under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court first defined them in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) as words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
 
Guille said:
You didn't argue in favor of facts, you did the opposite, you argued about what could happen, not what did happen. You're as bad as the people you think you're opposing.
Click to expand...

The idea of making law in that respect is that you have some idea what those fighting words are or other real actions using words might be. You don't have to wait in those cases for someone to actually use them to make a law restricting them.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The idea of making law in that respect is that you have some idea what those fighting words are or other real actions using words might be. You don't have to wait in those cases for someone to actually use them to make a law restricting them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you do. You're just as much of a fucking wastoid as the people you argue against here. You're just as much of a problem as they are. You think just like them. You are an enemy. You and your thought crimes can go fuck yourselves. You're an enemy.
 
Hello Jarod,

Jarod said:
A lot of Trumppers have never read the constitution, they have no idea what it says, except what some whacko on the internet says... Do any of you honestly believe Trump has ever read it?
Click to expand...

Doubtful, but if he has it was to look for some kind of loophole to enforce him ripping off somebody or the government. He is actually proud of not having paid his fair share to society.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Jarod,



Doubtful, but if he has it was to look for some kind of loophole to enforce him ripping off somebody or the government. He is actually proud of not having paid his fair share to society.
Click to expand...

Not a single person on this thread expressed the belief that Trump had ever read the constitution, that’s very telling. They pretend to believe in the Constitution, well most of them have never read it and they support candidates have no idea what’s in it.
 
Hello Jarod,

Jarod said:
Not a single person on this thread expressed the belief that Trump had ever read the constitution, that’s very telling.
Click to expand...


I'm not surprised. And it's all too easy to think Trump is stupid because of some of his crazy deeds. I see that he is actually quite adept at his main talent which is managing his public image. He is also very talented with the gift of gab. He stirs emotions in people like a political talk pundit. He creates his own alternate version of things and gets people to really believe in his BS. Extremely talented at dazzling susceptible minds with slick talk. He specializes in fast subject-switching It catches minds off guard. Just before they might realize what he has said is bogus, he craftily switches the subject to something else rather stirring, so that the train of thought is derailed before the unsuspecting follower can come to understand that he is dealing in contrived fantasy rather than fact. The man knows what he's doing, and he's quite effective at it. I do not think he is an idiot at all. It's just that everything he has learned in life is how to deceive.

Jarod said:
They pretend to believe in the Constitution, well most of them have never read it and they support candidates have no idea what’s in it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Trump did bring a lot of political neophytes into the equation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top