Originally Posted by 2MuchMark (Post 22205451)

Instead of calling it an "American Problem", why not just call it a problem?

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 22206833)

Oh and I am going to come around to your house and take whatever I want.

Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22205715)

oh you found it in 5 seconds but did not have another minute to read it ?



so WHAT is not correct except the fact that you WANT it not correct ?

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207821)

It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 22205893)

But they don't have the balls to do it.

And of course the NRA and companies that make guns are going to lobby against that and do their best to sway any decision.
That's what they SHOULD do. It's their 1st amendment right. And I don't blame them at all.

But repealing the 2nd amendment is truly the only way to disarm citizens.

You can't have "rights" and then just decide to take them away because we are upset over this horrible incident.

What's needed is thoughtful action to legally CHANGE that "right" to fit in with a society that now has no regard for human life.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207827)

They would if voters turned their backs on them and voted for people that will force change.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22206015)

The US Constitution is not a static old document that never changes. This why we have "amendments", meaning add-ons or additions to the original Constitution. So we DO change with the times (remember slavery?)

My proposal is the most Democratic. We cannot simply change the 2nd Amendment (or amend the Amendment if you will). No, we would have to abolish the 2nd Amendment and then ADD a "new" Amendment.

This new Amendment would be based on the current 2nd Amendment but include background checks, stricter control laws like IDs, etc. The debate would get most heated when discussing what type of guns (and ammunition) will be legal and which is not. But America should have a National Special Amendment Vote to see how the Country feels. What with all the shootings, almost daily now, this is an Emergency situation and our Dear Leaders should show leadership and get the ball rolling on changing the Constitution ASAP.

Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22206579)

of course - there have been a few changes and each one has been based on the idea of what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish.

in the case of the 2nd amendment you do not even have to go that far and just take a look at what's in the original text.

I do not know where the opinion comes from the 2nd Amendment would give the civilian individual the right to carry weapons. this is not what the 2nd amendment say because in the original text is written:



now lets ask the oxford dictionary what the "militia" means.

so i think we can agree that a militia is not an individual person, ok ?

the reasons for such a civil defense were probably that there was no real united America at that time and the aftermath of the civil war was still too fresh.
since this militia did not exist as an institution, there was nothing left but to raise the civilian population to this rank.

but this gap of the missing militia was later filled by the national guard.
if the national guard had already existed at this time, the 2 constitutional amendment would have referred precisely to this militia.

if a sheriff makes you a helper today and say "watch 'til I'm back" then you will have to return the sheriff star and the service pistol after his return

of course, the sight of this fact has just been prevented by the powerful ones who make hundreds of billions of dollars a year and who think so immoral that even a gunman is used as an advertisement to sell more weapons.

anyone who closes their eyes to this logic takes nothing more than his right to stupidity because he is led astray with false arguments

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207839)

My proposal of making it the job of the police to issue licenses, would, of course, provide all the necessary background checks. Someone has to have a reason to buy a gun of a specific kind. Handgun with a single shot right up to semi-automatics, one or as many as they want. They have to give the police a good reason to own a product designed to kill.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207821)

It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207821)

It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207821)

It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207839)

My proposal of making it the job of the police to issue licenses, would, of course, provide all the necessary background checks. Someone has to have a reason to buy a gun of a specific kind. Handgun with a single shot right up to semi-automatics, one or as many as they want. They have to give the police a good reason to own a product designed to kill.

Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22206579)

of course - there have been a few changes and each one has been based on the idea of what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish.

in the case of the 2nd amendment you do not even have to go that far and just take a look at what's in the original text.

I do not know where the opinion comes from the 2nd Amendment would give the civilian individual the right to carry weapons. this is not what the 2nd amendment say because in the original text is written:



now lets ask the oxford dictionary what the "militia" means.

so i think we can agree that a militia is not an individual person, ok ?

the reasons for such a civil defense were probably that there was no real united America at that time and the aftermath of the civil war was still too fresh.
since this militia did not exist as an institution, there was nothing left but to raise the civilian population to this rank.

but this gap of the missing militia was later filled by the national guard.
if the national guard had already existed at this time, the 2 constitutional amendment would have referred precisely to this militia.

if a sheriff makes you a helper today and say "watch 'til I'm back" then you will have to return the sheriff star and the service pistol after his return

of course, the sight of this fact has just been prevented by the powerful ones who make hundreds of billions of dollars a year and who think so immoral that even a gunman is used as an advertisement to sell more weapons.

anyone who closes their eyes to this logic takes nothing more than his right to stupidity because he is led astray with false arguments

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207801)

This is an American problem because you keep voting for the people who only listen to you when they want your vote. Then when they get it they only listen to their funders.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 22208133)

Well...I'm glad that Porn Nerd has come along to interpret the Constitution better than the Judicial Branch can.

Boy if Trump were to criticize the Supreme Court...Porn Nerd would be standing alongside Nancy Pelosi screaming for "impeachment" because he is "undermining our Democracy".

Porn Nerd...we are on a porn message board. You can have your OPINION on what you THINK the Constitution says.

But reality is...neither of us knows shit about shit when it comes to that and secondly...nothing we think means shit about shit. lol

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22208223)

Of this we are in total agreement. LOL

Oh - and I have been railing against The Court for years, including Democratic appointed judges. The examples I gave go back decades.

Originally Posted by Acepimp (Post 22208233)

Hey Thommy and BladeLiar:

Today?s #FakeNews: Liberal Media Pushes Lie That Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill to Buy Guns (VIDEO)

Do you clowns ever stop pushing FAKE NEWS?

:rasta

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 22207897)

You should not be debating American politics. You really have no clue.

Obama passed the law, Trump repealed it. They did this very quietly. Now the White House is refusing to release a picture of Trump signing the repeal.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 22207899)

The government already enforces this - In fact, the FBI does.

In the United States you do not need to prove a reason to own a firearm of any type. If you clear a background check, you can buy whatever you want.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22207983)

This is true in every country. Being British by birth you should know better.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22208345)

I missed the link. I was asking for it.

Originally Posted by Bladewire (Post 22207825)

Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22208339)

you talking about fake news and refer to thegatewaypundit ????
this is one of the biggest fake news sources on this planet, you honk.

why you get your fucking information not on the sources where they are ??
are you too dumb to find them?

HERE is the Public Law No: 110-180

and here you fucking fake news eater is the H.J.Res.40 signed by your liar

and if you want to tell me now that congress.gov is also a fake news site than go to hell you stupid fucktard.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 22205893)

I don't think you're "wrong".

But you have to realize that the United States is based on the constitution.

It's a right to own guns. The 2nd amendment specifically says that Congress shall make no law restricting that.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22208349)

In what country do school shootings happen on a regular basis?

Originally Posted by Helix (Post 22205471)

The common denominator of these mass shootings is psychiatric drugs. Those types of drugs do have the side effects of violence and suicide. Stop the drugging of America to stop the shootings.

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 22208985)

The common denominator in all shooting is guns. You can't definitively say all mass killers are on drugs, but you can say they all used a gun.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 22209091)

Originally Posted by Acepimp (Post 22208603)

Hey Thommy, i realize you can't help that you're mentally challenged / Low I.Q. gullible idiot, so I'll try to be nice to you.

"The repeal of the Obama-era regulation, "doesn't allow people to buy guns who have been properly adjudicated by a court of law as mentally ill or unstable."

"The Obama-era rule was designed to take away people's rights without due process of law. It would have flagged the names of people who, for example, have an anxiety disorder or depression which keeps them from working, and who, as the SSA puts it, ?need help in managing [their] personal money affairs,'"

Also, it's worth noting that there are already regulations on firearm purchases by persons who have a documented history of mental illness, or who have shown themselves to be a danger.

Reporters resurrect bogus narrative that Republicans made it 'easier' for the mentally ill to buy guns

You think an older person who let's their son or daughter manage their check book is mentally ill?? That's not accurate, and the social security administration doesn't need to be infringing on people's rights. Also, Gateway Pundit is not fake, dumbass. Now do us all a favor and...

Originally Posted by Helix (Post 22209047)

The frequency of these shootings has dramatically increased since the widespread use of the psychotropic drugs. If it was just the guns then we would have seen shootings like this since the founding of our country.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22208691)

Ahh but that was not your original comment Paul (to which I replied):

"This is an American problem because you keep voting for the people who only listen to you when they want your vote. Then when they get it they only listen to their funders. "

Of course few countries have this mass shooting in schools problem the USA has. But manipulating the electorate happens EVERYWHERE, in every country. Especially Great Britain.

Don't change the argument.

Originally Posted by Acepimp (Post 22208603)

Hey Thommy, i realize you can't help that you're mentally challenged / Low I.Q. gullible idiot, so I'll try to be nice to you.

"The repeal of the Obama-era regulation, "doesn't allow people to buy guns who have been properly adjudicated by a court of law as mentally ill or unstable."

"The Obama-era rule was designed to take away people's rights without due process of law. It would have flagged the names of people who, for example, have an anxiety disorder or depression which keeps them from working, and who, as the SSA puts it, ?need help in managing [their] personal money affairs,'"

Also, it's worth noting that there are already regulations on firearm purchases by persons who have a documented history of mental illness, or who have shown themselves to be a danger.

Reporters resurrect bogus narrative that Republicans made it 'easier' for the mentally ill to buy guns

You think an older person who let's their son or daughter manage their check book is mentally ill?? That's not accurate, and the social security administration doesn't need to be infringing on people's rights. Also, Gateway Pundit is not fake, dumbass. Now do us all a favor and...

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22209499)

Republicans and Democrats are the same side of the coin. Neither will repeal or change the laws on guns by a lot. Because of the huge amounts of money they need to get elected. That can only come from corporations. Most European countries have more parties with totally different views, so every four or five years we get the chance to change the people in charge. In America, you don't even bother to change who you vote for. Not you as an individual, you as a nation.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22210647)

On this Paul we are in total agreement. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Helix (Post 22209047)

The frequency of these shootings has dramatically increased since the widespread use of the psychotropic drugs. If it was just the guns then we would have seen shootings like this since the founding of our country.