11-20-2018, 12:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2018, 12:03 PM by Eric the Green.)
(11-20-2018, 03:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(11-20-2018, 12:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, Bob is not correct. Weapons of war don't belong on the streets or in individual's gun collections. Owning weapons of war is not protected by the constitution. The militia consisted of citizens with muskets; AR-15s are not the same; they are killing machines. And reminding us that militias were needed to repel invasions also reminds us of how out of date the Second is. It needs to be repealed someday, yes. But No, we don't need armed citizens to repel invasions anymore. Citizen armies are not legal; that's why Koresh was attacked. And the Black Panthers too in the late sixties.
And mass murderers are not a well-regulated militia. That's all AR-15s are used for: mass murder. They are useless otherwise, and certainly have nothing to do with any "sport." Assault weapons bans were legal for 10 years; the ban should have been permanent, that's all. But since confiscation is not in the cards, bans on sales is all we can do. It's a start.
But you two don't seem ready to budge from your values lock on this issue, but it's also useless for you to argue with me about it. But we do it for the spectators, I guess, assuming there are any who may have open minds. They are hard to come by on the internet these days. But no, people are coming to their senses and will realize that weapons of mass murder should be outlawed, legally and in accordance with the constitution, and that the weapons facilitate the crime.
The gun question has many dimensions. What the founding fathers believed, what they wrote into law, what is the law of the land, is not in question. That the values of the red are more in alignment with the early Industrial Age is not in question. What should be in question is what the constitution should say, which means there is no clear supermajority, which is intended to repeal or change the constitution.
You just think the constitution should say what you believe it should say, and you are a partisan hack. Thus, the evidence is ignored by you.
Also, for years the Jim Crow interpretations were widely accepted and still are by a few who think prohibition would somehow work in this case. If you read your history, you become very aware of how the Jim Crow courts were out to remove federal enforcement of the Bill of Rights and fabricated any excuse possible to say the federal government had no business enforcing those rights. They were so sure of their prejudice that they would use any pretext. You should actually read some of the old Jim Crow precedents.
I will not budge on my views of prohibiting sales of AR-15s. Arguments will have no effect on me. Political parties have nothing to do with this, and I don't agree with what you believe the constitution says. I don't subscribe to views that result in thousands and thousands of needless deaths. Sorry. Jim Crow was repression of blacks. Gun violence facilitated by technology is killing of blacks and people of all races. Where we agree, we can agree.