Mass Shooting in the USA

[Wilber]

The second amendment is now probably the only sentence in the English language where it's been decided that the first part in no way modifies the second. I was always taught that a sentence is supposed to express a single thought. I suppose the constitution was written by a band of morons who weren't aware of this.

Guess that's cause you were taught the English language.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

Yes. Just like Dan Brown, the neo-conservatives on the SCOTUS succeeded in divining meaning that had eluded scholars for 200 years. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. We're all saved. Good thing that they had this "special" group of jurists that could divine meaning differently than others, including earlier iterations of the SCOTUS!!

Had there been a SCOTUS challenge in the previous 200 years on Americans right to keep and bear arms?

Edited December 6, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

Guess that's cause you were taught the English language.

Perhaps, but I'm forced to wonder if the definition of prefatory and operative were taught.

[ReeferMadness]

Perhaps, but I'm forced to wonder if the definition of prefatory and operative were taught.

I can only assume you posted a link without comment because you couldn't wrap your head around the court's circuitous and tendentious reasoning.

[Wilber]

Perhaps, but I'm forced to wonder if the definition of prefatory and operative were taught.

So evidently the first part has no purpose, it's just filler.

[jbg]

The dissonance and outrage are like Skynet...there is no Central Core...it's software, it's everywhere.

Huh? Not sure I follow.

[jbg]

Such an obsession for Canada, wondering how it contributes to the thread or if it just trolling. Should I report it? Would it make a difference?

Just some thoughts.

And no one commented on the media ransacking the 'crime scene' ?

I'm from the U.S.A. Got a problem?

[Derek 2.0]

I can only assume you posted a link without comment because you couldn't wrap your head around the court's circuitous and tendentious reasoning.

No, I understand it perfectly, its all about the placement of the middle comma......

[Wilber]

No, I understand it perfectly, its all about the placement of the middle comma......

So what does the first part mean? A government can form a militia without constitutional approval and it follows that if it is in the Constitution, any militias have to be well regulated cause the Constitution says so. By who, or does any one give a crap and wish they hadn't included that part in the first place?

[On Guard for Thee]

The NRA had the "well regulated" part chiseled off the front of their new office building.

[Derek 2.0]

So what does the first part mean? A government can form a militia without constitutional approval and it follows that if it is in the Constitution, any militias have to be well regulated cause the Constitution says so. By who, or does any one give a crap and wish they hadn't included that part in the first place?

Each State was given the right to form a citizens army (Today's National Guard) to replace the then disbanded Continental Army........call them crazy all you like, but for some reason, the founders held a distrust in forming a powerful standing army on their own soil........after just defeating one.

[Derek 2.0]

And now it seems the gun control camp is not only making up facts to support their agenda, but words:

So you know, multiautomatic round weapons are easily available, even though not in California, but they can cross the state line, as you know,” Sanchez insisted.

I wonder if one needs a tax stamp for a "multiautomatic round weapon"?

[eyeball]

Huh? Not sure I follow.

Ever watched the Terminator series? Rise of the Machines I think. In the movie it's assumed the enemy, Skynet, is a single central computer core in one location - hardware in other words that can be easily destroyed but as it turns out (spoiler alert) Skynet is actually software that's everywhere.

What the west is up against is more like Skynet, it's basically everywhere.

[Wilber]

Each State was given the right to form a citizens army (Today's National Guard) to replace the then disbanded Continental Army........call them crazy all you like, but for some reason, the founders held a distrust in forming a powerful standing army on their own soil........after just defeating one.

And yet you would have a hard time finding US gun owners who object to them having the most powerful standing army in the world.

Evidently, the version of the 2nd Amendment the States signed has only one comma.

While some of their decisions are questionable, we are incredibly fortunate the people who wrote our constitution weren't stupid enough to include such an ill thought out clause. The worst we got is our Senate, which like the 2nd Amendment also reflects the 21st century reality of our countries as much as a horse and buggy. At least it isn't capable of mass murder.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Wilber

[Argus]

No it is not.

Which makes your point pretty damned silly given we are speaking about American Muslims killing Americans.

[Argus]

We spread our poison on their soil long before they committed terrorist acts on our soil.

Preposterous nonsense.

It again infantalizes Muslims by seeking to abrogate all responsibility for their actions, as if they were neither intelligent, sophisticated or mature enough to make their own decisions. Life can be tough in a lot of the third world, but only Muslims respond with bloody, outrageous terrorist attacks on helpless civilians. The idea Western governments have supported all the often hostile Muslim governments goes completely against history and reality. It's a self perpeturating myth bleeding heart liberals continue to spout, that whatever our relationship with a dictatorial government we are, in the end, responsible for whatever it does. If we trade with them and have friendly relations we're propping them up. If we refuse to trade and impose sanctions we're responsible for killing children in poverty. If we stand back and ignore rebels trying to oust them we're cruel and ignoring their plight. If we help the rebels and then those rebels can't govern the country properly then it's our fault for helping overthrow a 'stable' government. There is simply no means forward which the bleeding heart left won't use to wring their hands in anguish over their own self-imposed guilt.

[eyeball]

The idea Western governments have supported all the often hostile Muslim governments goes completely against history and reality.

Then why do you keep repeating it?

[GostHacked]

Then why do you keep repeating it?

Because Argus in the end does not know about how we have helped give rise to groups like ISIS. He is either ignorant, or ignoring it on purpose. Even when you have the government telling us they are supporting them, it's not believed. Kind of a Stockholm Syndrome scenario.

The evidence Russia gave us last week with the oil routes heading into Turkey, which I must stress is an Islamic nation that is part of NATO. The oil is being purchased by Turkey which seems to give funding directly to ISIS.

I wonder how much more proof people need that would show how western nations have assisted radical Islamic terrorism in the M.E.

[Argus]

Because Argus in the end does not know about how we have helped give rise to groups like ISIS

The Saudis are responsible for the rise of groups like ISIS. Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Boko Harem and ISIS all trace their philsophical, religious and ideological beliefs to Saudi Wahabism.

I wonder how much more proof people need that would show how western nations have assisted radical Islamic terrorism in the M.E.

We need evidence that isn't produced by people wearing tinfoil hats.

[eyeball]

The Saudis are responsible

Who's responsible for giving the Saudi's a free pass?

Edited December 7, 2015 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

Preposterous nonsense.

It again infantalizes Muslims by seeking to abrogate all responsibility for their actions, as if they were neither intelligent, sophisticated or mature enough to make their own decisions. Life can be tough in a lot of the third world, but only Muslims respond with bloody, outrageous terrorist attacks on helpless civilians.

Strawman. Guess you didn't past my first sentence. What I said:

"We spread our poison on their soil long before they committed terrorist acts on our soil. I think their methods are despicable, I think our methods are despicable...Yes, I sympathize with many of their grievances towards us (which people here will ridicule me for & twist my words/meaning), I just disagree with their means of redressing them (targeting civilians), not to mention their ridiculous religious ideology."

The idea Western governments have supported all the often hostile Muslim governments goes completely against history and reality. It's a self perpeturating myth bleeding heart liberals continue to spout, that whatever our relationship with a dictatorial government we are, in the end, responsible for whatever it does.

That's not what I'm saying, so another strawman. The history of western relations with the middle-east since early 20th century is that we do whatever we can get away with there militarily/economically/politically to secure our own selfish aims with virtually zero regard for the actual populations that live there. That goes for pretty much the rest of the non-western world too. As for what you say above, I don't think that at all. We should have peaceful trade with ME countries, refusing all trade with countries with poor human rights records is ridiculous because under that criteria we couldn't be trading with most countries, including China. But do we need to sell them gazillions in weapons so they can kill each other and often turn those weapons on us eventually?

[Argus]

Strawman. Guess you didn't past my first sentence. What I said:

"We spread our poison on their soil long before they committed terrorist acts on our soil. I think their methods are despicable, I think our methods are despicable...Yes, I sympathize with many of their grievances towards us (which people here will ridicule me for & twist my words/meaning), I just disagree with their means of redressing them (targeting civilians), not to mention their ridiculous religious ideology."

It's still trying to excuse them, to some extent, and blame us for their actions.

The history of western relations with the middle-east since early 20th century is that we do whatever we can get away with there militarily/economically/politically to secure our own selfish aims with virtually zero regard for the actual populations that live there.

Let me correct you here. That is not the history of western relations with the middle-east in the 20th century. It is the history of all nations relations with all nations going back as far as recorded history. Western nations, if anything, have been kinder and gentler than pretty much any group of countries you can find throughout history, given their military and economic strength compared to everyone else. There is no doubt in my mind that were the middle east comparably stronger than the West they would have invaded, conquered, and forced the conversion of everyone under their sway to Islam - by force.

It has never been the duty of any independent nation, empire or whatever, to look out for the interest of other parties. I don't think Canadians, as kind, gentle, sweet, noble and righteous as they are, put people in charge so they can place the interests of foreigners on the same level as the interests of Canadians. Certainly the Russians and Chinese don't give a damn about the interest of anyone but themselves. And you know what, neither do the leaders of any other nations on Earth. Western countries might have a certain congenial relationship with one another and no desire to cause harm, but nowhere else on Earth will you find any nation refusing to take advantage of an opportunity to enrich itself at the expense of its neighbours.

. But do we need to sell them gazillions in weapons so they can kill each other and often turn those weapons on us eventually?

In a perfect world, no. We sell them weapons and 'befriend' them so they won't buy their weapons and get 'befriended' by the Russians, Chinese or Iranians (or North Koreans). Refusing is not going to hinder them in maintaining control over their terrritories. They'll simply get the weapons elsewhere.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's still trying to excuse them, to some extent, and blame us for their actions.

I do not support targeting civilians, it's deplorable, I don't excuse them for that, and I don't blame us for that. What I'm saying is they have legitimate reasons to be extremely angry with us. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. If China continued to attack Canada for decades, destroyed its government and installed China-friendly puppet dictators, killed hundreds of thousands of Canadian civilians (possibly including members of your family/friends), brought Chinese companies into Canada to ship out our tar sands, installed Chinese military bases all over Canada to control us, and tortured Canadians who tried to fight the Chinese ...would you be mad at China? Would you feel like taking up arms? This is war.

Western nations, if anything, have been kinder and gentler than pretty much any group of countries you can find throughout history, given their military and economic strength compared to everyone else. There is no doubt in my mind that were the middle east comparably stronger than the West they would have invaded, conquered, and forced the conversion of everyone under their sway to Islam - by force.

I'd agree with you, yes. But I'm sorry I hold Canada and the West to much higher standards than third world dictators. Because other, inferior nations would commit terrible atrocities for their own gains does that mean it's ok for us to do it? Since other nations have ie: committed genocide, does that mean it would be ok for us to do it too? I'm sorry but I'm not cool with launching wars killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and denying countries self-determination just so we can save a little money on oil and make our oil & defense contractors richer. It's psychopathic. Are you content being a cold, heartless, greedy mass murderer?

In a perfect world, no. We sell them weapons and 'befriend' them so they won't buy their weapons and get 'befriended' by the Russians, Chinese or Iranians (or North Koreans). Refusing is not going to hinder them in maintaining control over their terrritories. They'll simply get the weapons elsewhere.

I completely agree with you. But on the other hand, I dunno...it just seems wrong. It's economically defensible, but is it morally defensible?

[bush_cheney2004]

....I'd agree with you, yes. But I'm sorry I hold Canada and the West to much higher standards than third world dictators. Because other, inferior nations would commit terrible atrocities for their own gains does that mean it's ok for us to do it? Since other nations have ie: committed genocide, does that mean it would be ok for us to do it too?

Still waiting for terrorism attacks from First Nations in Canada, who suffered all of the above without any dictatorship....it happened with a constitutional monarchy and democratically elected government.

[WestCoastRunner]

Still waiting for terrorism attacks from First Nations in Canada, who suffered all of the above without any dictatorship....it happened with a constitutional monarchy and democratically elected government.

Well, Trudeau will be attending the First Nations Assembly, the first PM to do so since his father.

Not only that, an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women will be conducted and all recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will be implemented.

Edited December 7, 2015 by WestCoastRunner