Thread: Al Hoffman Jr. a RINO donor, to support attack on 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by Judy

You need to read the Declaration of Independence.

I have! That document was written at the end of a war. The fir was still up on the back of their necks.

Understand that the Constitution lists several prohibitions. Yet the Constitution has no consequences for violation of any of it dictates, except for one, treason, which the Constitution lists death as the penalty. You can't convince me that there are not equal or worse crimes, such as murder. But the bitterness they felt at being betrayed motivated them as they wrote that great document.

Also, the Constitution was written and enacted many years after the Declaration Of Independence! You could say the Declaration Of Independence was written in the heat of the moment!

Originally Posted by artist

If you want to go beyond a standard gun ownership rights/license, then you should be req'd to meet a certain standard -"certifications" to use semi auto 20-30 rounders with annual re-certs; e.g., sans criminal record, multiple police calls, age, mental issues, mental meds, behaviour treatment, etc.

I wonder who you were thinking of?

Police and military are regularly re-certified for the tools that they use. When you enter the military, they don't just give you an M-16 and send you to fight. You are trained and periodically re-certified. Police, likewise. Yet many here advocate freedom to just buy any weapon you want and never be checked on your competence to use it. They squawk at even a check when you purchase such weapons. I don't think the Second Amendment was intended as a blank check.

Originally Posted by artist

If you get off on killing multiple wild hogs, that is your problem.

Don't animals have rights?

Originally Posted by jtdc

I have! That document was written at the end of a war. The fir was still up on the back of their necks.

Understand that the Constitution lists several prohibitions. Yet the Constitution has no consequences for violation of any of it dictates, except for one, treason, which the Constitution lists death as the penalty. You can't convince me that there are not equal or worse crimes, such as murder. But the bitterness they felt at being betrayed motivated them as they wrote that great document.

Also, the Constitution was written and enacted many years after the Declaration Of Independence! You could say the Declaration Of Independence was written in the heat of the moment!

LOL!! The 2nd Amendment provides the means for exactly what the Declaration of Independence declared was a right of our people and did so as you point out many years later, not in the heat of the moment, but in a restful and calm, thoughtful process. There is no question what the 2nd Amendment says or means or why it exists. If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, then just step up and say so, don't try and cheat on it, because frankly, as soon as you've handed the government the right to "license" you to exercise your rights under the 2nd Amendment, you might as well not have it.

Donald Trump Directs Justice Department To Take Steps To Ban Bump Stocks

Originally Posted by Judy

LOL!! The 2nd Amendment provides the means for exactly what the Declaration of Independence declared was a right of our people and did so as you point out many years later, not in the heat of the moment, but in a restful and calm, thoughtful process.

You told me to read the Declaration Of Independence! The Second Amendment is not part of that document!

What right does the Second Amendment provide that is "exactly" what the Declaration of Independence declared was a right of our people? Collectively the people of the Colonies broke away from the rule of the Crown. I don't see in it the declaration the people have the right to go to war, individually, against their government. You are seeing something that isn't there.

Originally Posted by Judy

There is no question what the 2nd Amendment says or means or why it exists.

That is why people go to war. You see one thing and I see something else. You focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", and ignore what is written before that. I see "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," as the reason for the "rights". If the founders wanted no restriction, period, they would have written "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Note that I removed the comma between "arms" and "shall". Those rights were conditional!

Originally Posted by Judy

If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, then just step up and say so, don't try and cheat on it, because frankly, as soon as you've handed the government the right to "license" you to exercise your rights under the 2nd Amendment, you might as well not have it.

I certainly would like to see the language clarified. But who would do that? Those that wrote it in the first place are long gone. We can't consult them. To change the Constitution it would take the majority of the country agreeing on the words to be used. We have had judges give their interpretation, but they, like you and me, are only rendering their opinion. Look at the First Amendment. Do you see "freedom of expression" anywhere in there? Yet some judge saw it and now that is accepted as part of the First Amendment. That's another Amendment that I don't read as an absolute freedom. But many people feel it says they can say whatever they want wherever they want.

These debates are no different than the debates on natural born citizenship. Some people want to change the plain meaning of the words of our Constitution to fit it to their new or modern view or different view because they don't see or appreciate their importance or value. Others will claim the words mean exactly what they say in their plain meanings of the words.

The Constitution wasn't written to trick anyone out of anything or into anything, it was to form a government, protect the states and the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution specifically to protect very specific rights of the states and the people.

I don't even understand why Americans constantly engage in these debates about gun control every time there's a mass shooting. Mass shootings are against the law, anyone willing to violate those laws is going to violate gun control laws or use a different weapon to feed their urge to kill.

The best way to avoid school shootings is have proper doors and keep them locked during class-time with a sufficient number of armed guards and faculty to cover the premises.

Originally Posted by Judy

These debates are no different than the debates on natural born citizenship.

Another ambiguous Amendment.

Originally Posted by Judy

Some people want to change the plain meaning of the words of our Constitution to fit it to their new or modern view or different view because they don't see or appreciate their importance or value. Others will claim the words mean exactly what they say in their plain meanings of the words.

Does that mean you are an originalist? Do you feel the Constitution should have never been changed from its original? That would mean slavery should be legal and women would still not have the right to vote. The Founders knew they did not have a perfect document. So they put in the amendment process to afford honing it as needed.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Constitution wasn't written to trick anyone out of anything or into anything, it was to form a government, protect the states and the rights of the people.

It was a compromise! We already had experienced one person making the laws, the King Of England, and the Colonists did not find that acceptable. So they created a different government, different from what the world had tried up to that point.

Originally Posted by Judy

I don't even understand why Americans constantly engage in these debates about gun control every time there's a mass shooting.

I had a neighbor whose daughter had a cat. One night the cat got run over by their car. When the girl tried to comfort her cat it scratched her. She didn't understand why. I told her that the cat was in a lot of pain and didn't know where the pain was coming from, so it would lash out at anybody who came near it. Humans aren't that different. They want to blame someone, or something. Those students are scared. Being students they have virtually no control over their environment. And since the law mandates that we trust our children to schools several hours a day, we feel helpless when something that we have no control over happens. Then, of course, there are many just looking for a platform.

One psychiatrist we talked to told us that when parents are separated and their child get hurt, she gave a broken arm as an example, the child would blame the parent not there for not protecting them, not the parent who was caring for them who might have actually been responsible for them getting hurt. This was applicable to kids molested by one parent blaming the other parent for not protecting them.

Originally Posted by Judy

Mass shootings are against the law, anyone willing to violate those laws is going to violate gun control laws or use a different weapon to feed their urge to kill.

And that is the reason we need laws. If everybody agreed, we wouldn't need laws to force us to abide by what others dictate for all of us.

Originally Posted by Judy

The best way to avoid school shootings is have proper doors and keep them locked during class-time with a sufficient number of armed guards and faculty to cover the premises.

The best way to limit crime is to have one cop for every person watching everything we do! We're getting there.

The problem with the gun control argument is it is a band aide covering up the infection that is the problem. That infection is not easy to diagnose nor cure. In this case this "kid" started off as a orphan when his parents died. Now if you are familiar with the laws around adoption, the state interferes with family life. You have to treat that kid differently from the way you would treat you own child. So it is hard for them to fit in. Then, in his case, he had a medical condition which would also make him an outcast among his piers. Our society is pushing violent movies and video games that desensitize people to the effects of violence. Then to complicate things more, our political system puts up roadblocks to prevent dealing with him. So when this volatile mixture explodes, which of the many contributors do we blame? The gun is the easiest target.

When I was a kid, we didn't need to lock the car, no matter where we went. The world has changed since then, and not for the better. But how can we get it back?

The natural born citizenship clause isn't in an Amendment, it's in the main Constitution. Natural born citizen is a requirement to be President of the United States. You're thinking about birthright citizenship clause under the 14th Amendment.

I support the Amendments to the US Constitution still in effect, except the 16th Amendment. Some day when the Revenue Act is repealed and replaced with the FairTax, HR 25 in the US House of Representatives, then sometime soon thereafter, we should repeal the 16th Amendment and save ourselves and future generations from the tyranny, cost. harm and debt caused by the income tax.

As to the shooting, it's a terrible tragedy, all the way around, like every killing. The schools need to realize that they must secure these facilities. No one should be able to drive up in a Uber, waltz in through an unlocked door, make it all the way to the 2nd and 3rd floors though the stairwell doors which should have still been locked, shooting up the place, drop his weapon and walk out with the kids fleeing. He was spotted on the grounds before he got in by school officials. He was met by a 14 year old who told the coach on the golf cart as soon as he got out of the building, the 14 year old Cruz told to get out there cuz it was going to get messy. Cruz got in 2 doors that should have been locked because class was still in session.

This huge school of 3200 students plus facility and personnel all in one complex, with 1 gun on a resource officer who was not in the area or even near the shootings, is not enough. Who covers for him if he happens to be in the bathroom? How many shootings and incidents does it take to realize you need multiple people throughout the facility at all times to deal with this when your security system fails? The coach could have taken him out. These teachers using their bodies as armor to protect these students could have taken him out. Other teachers with guns could have come running and taken him out. And guess what? When they know they aren't the only dude in the room with a gun, they probably won't choose your facility. But if they do, at least you're prepared to deal with it.

I don't think there were any contributors here. I think his adopted mother tried her best to raise him right, to get him help and support when he needed it. He might have some mental problems, but that's not clear. He may have emotional problems because he over-reacts to losing his girlfriend. He might also just be a sociopath like Ted Bundy. He might be a combination of all three. But not all sociopaths kill, not all mentally ill people kill, not all people with emotional problems kill. So whose rights do you violate looking for a solution to a cause you can't diagnose and even if you could, is 1 in every 10 million?

Under our system, you just treat people the same and protect everyone's rights until they do something wrong, then you punish the person responsible. In the meantime, we need to secure our public facilities to protect them from criminals and follow up on all leads involving any threat, especially ones involving mass murder.

And that's not to say that even if the FBI had followed up on the leads, they would have stopped it. Cruz conned everyone in authority. He conned the cops 39 times, he conned the JROTC, he conned a mental health institution, he conned a social worker, he conned his friend's parents who took him in after his mother died. That's a sign of a sociopath, and there's no cure for that.

Originally Posted by jtdc

Originally Posted by johnwk

No. I'm assessing your intentional mischaracterizations, deflections and obfuscations.

Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place?

I did. You just haven't been paying attention. The irrefutable fact is, our Second Amendment is not about "sport" as you suggest. It's about the people being well armed in order to protect themselves from an oppressive and immoral government. Stop with your Fifth Column deflections, obfuscations and deflections.


JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

Originally Posted by Judy

The natural born citizenship clause isn't in an Amendment, it's in the main Constitution.

WRONG!

The Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Originally Posted by Judy

The schools need to realize that they must secure these facilities. No one should be able to drive up in a Uber, waltz in through an unlocked door, make it all the way to the 2nd and 3rd floors though the stairwell doors which should have still been locked, shooting up the place, drop his weapon and walk out with the kids fleeing.

How have we survived until now? Our children must grow up in a virtual prison? Maybe. I can't remember the phrase, but someone said build a better machine, you improve efficiency. Build a better man, you improve a world. The failure is what our society has become. If we don't repair that, we will have to live in bullet-proof, bomb-proof cars, houses, schools, stores, etc. But the unlimited freedom so many cherish is destroying us.

Originally Posted by Judy

He was spotted on the grounds before he got in by school officials. He was met by a 14 year old who told the coach on the golf cart as soon as he got out of the building, the 14 year old Cruz told to get out there cuz it was going to get messy. Cruz got in 2 doors that should have been locked because class was still in session.

He was investigated several times by authorities. He should have been dealt with then, before he got a gun, before he went to that school!

Originally Posted by Judy

This huge school of 3200 students plus facility and personnel all in one complex, with 1 gun on a resource officer who was not in the area or even near the shootings, is not enough. Who covers for him if he happens to be in the bathroom?

Do we place an armed guard in every classroom? Do we lock every student in a cell so they can't assault each other when the teacher has their back turned? The people in South Chicago say they can't walk down their streets. They can't let their children go out to play. They are prisoners in their homes because a politically correct society will not let police go after gang members until after they commit a crime. This was the result of that same kind of thinking. If mental illness is suspected, we have to wait until they do something harmful before authorities can intervene.

Teachers can't spank kids. Even parents can't spank their own kids. Teachers can't hug a student! Kids can't hug each other in school. As these kids get more isolated, able to communicate with each other only through text, do you expect them to grow up able to deal with other humans?

Originally Posted by Judy

The coach could have taken him out. These teachers using their bodies as armor to protect these students could have taken him out. Other teachers with guns could have come running and taken him out. And guess what? When they know they aren't the only dude in the room with a gun, they probably won't choose your facility. But if they do, at least you're prepared to deal with it.

And I have said I am for the teachers being armed. Just not with AK-47s or AR-15s!

Originally Posted by Judy

So whose rights do you violate looking for a solution to a cause you can't diagnose and even if you could, is 1 in every 10 million?

We either decide to make that sacrifice or we suffer the consequences.

Originally Posted by Judy

Under our system, you just treat people the same and protect everyone's rights until they do something wrong, then you punish the person responsible.

That is not "prevention", it is only a deterrent! And a deterrent only works for sane, law abiding people.