SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

[petegz28]

[tooge]

Ok, so it's not congress. Regardless, the guy is right. The US Constitution states that we are able to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms. It doesn't say how many, it doesn't say when and where you may keep them, register them, etc. Until the constitution is amended, we have the right to bear arms, unconditionally. Deal.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by tooge

Ok, so it's not congress. Regardless, the guy is right. The US Constitution states that we are able to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms. It doesn't say how many, it doesn't say when and where you may keep them, register them, etc. Until the constitution is amended, we have the right to bear arms, unconditionally. Deal.

Piers Morgan is creating an account on Chiefs Planet right now, so he can rush in here to tell you that you can't have a tank or a rocket launcher.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

As tragic as it may seem a school shooting is not going to effect the country near as much as the equivalent in congress.

Here's how they think--
We have all this security at the Capitol for Congress. But--no one has shot up the place. Therefore, they don't need all that security. Simple logic.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by tooge

Ok, so it's not congress. Regardless, the guy is right. The US Constitution states that we are able to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms. It doesn't say how many, it doesn't say when and where you may keep them, register them, etc. Until the constitution is amended, we have the right to bear arms, unconditionally. Deal.

It also doesn't say what kind of arms. But, for those who say there are implied powers, if the words from some Framers say it was to prevent tyranny or guarantee liberty then we have a right to arms equal in firepower to a standing army. Afterall, they did discuss the dangers of a standing army being too big and considered the militia to be the people because they feared the delegated power to the new national congress over raising an army. Hence, the reason for the Bill of Right's Second Amendment.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Here's how they think--
We have all this security at the Capitol for Congress. But--no one has shot up the place. Therefore, they don't need all that security. Simple logic.

Hmmm, so to cut through your sarcastic bull, you cede the fact that increased armed security reduces the risk of crime?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by bandwagonjumper

Honestly, just because his child got killed doesn't make him an authority on the second amendment. The supreme court decided and unless another case of gun ownership comes before them again and there decide differently you're stuck with what you have.

The Supreme Court is not the only authority on the Constitution. That being said they have at least said there is a personal and individual right to own a gun.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Hmmm, so to cut through your sarcastic bull, you cede the fact that increased armed security reduces the risk of crime?

Just got back from the real world D.C. and there's more security than ev'ah. WTF are they afraid of? I think it's the people. They should be.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Here's how they think--
We have all this security at the Capitol for Congress. But--no one has shot up the place. Therefore, they don't need all that security. Simple logic.

Uh...no. You have it backwards. The thinking is that these people who seem to think that inanimate objects are the source of crime still make sure that those same inanimate objects are all around them for their own security. The same people who seem to think that a "Gun Free Zone" sign is going to protect a six year old would never rely on such sign to protect their own asses.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Here's how they think--
We have all this security at the Capitol for Congress. But--no one has shot up the place. Therefore, they don't need all that security. Simple logic.

No one has shot the place up because there are guns present. Crime is lower in areas that have less gun restriction. Simple logic. You already understand this but to acknowledge these facts puts you at odds with your precious leader. It is obvious to everyone less out right idiots that we know where the crimes are committed and more gun restrictions will do nothing to prevent it. It amazes me the endless effort people will put into trying to square a circle~

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Hmmm, so to cut through your sarcastic bull, you cede the fact that increased armed security reduces the risk of crime?

When did I imply otherwise?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Just got back from the real world D.C. and there's more security than ev'ah. WTF are they afraid of? I think it's the people. They should be.

They heard there was a lunatic in town ranting on about how Obama received more votes than registered voters.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Uh...no. You have it backwards. The thinking is that these people who seem to think that inanimate objects are the source of crime still make sure that those same inanimate objects are all around them for their own security. The same people who seem to think that a "Gun Free Zone" sign is going to protect a six year old would never rely on such sign to protect their own asses.

I don't have a problem with armed guards at schools if they want that. I just think it is silly to make the comparison about security at places that are a prime targets for disgruntled nuts. A "gun free zone" is silly, and so is labelling a gun a mere "inanimate object."

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I don't have a problem with armed guards at schools if they want that. I just think it is silly to make the comparison about security at places that are a prime targets for disgruntled nuts. A "gun free zone" is silly, and so is labelling a gun a mere "inanimate object."

A gun is a mere inanimate object. That's pretty much the whole point that gun rights supporters (for lack of a better term) are trying to make.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by listopencil

A gun is a mere inanimate object. That's pretty much the whole point that gun rights supporters (for lack of a better term) are trying to make.

So is a spoon. I guess there's no difference between the two.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

So is a spoon. I guess there's no difference between the two.

I can kill you with a spoon.