Jump to content

CAWs.ws
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Feed

Mass shooting thread


  • Please log in to reply
1379 replies to this topic

#1221 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,553 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 04 June 2019 - 02:55 AM

He was buying a lot of guns in short period of time, that would have been a red flag to anyone but gun-loving whackos. And after-birth abortion makes no sense, since fetuses out of the womb are alive and babies now. Northam said nothing wrong here, it's a discussion between mothers and their physicians who know better than shitty politicians who will do nothing about the gun problem. If they're carrying to third trimester, there's a pretty good chance that the only reason they'd advocate for abortion or not keeping the baby alive is because it won't live for long or will have a difficult life. 

 

How are you saying "not every state is entirely red or blue" and then go on to state that VA is a blue state? And even though republicans are the majority, even if by slim margin? If it was a blue or purely blue state, then these gun control laws would have likely been passed, and the tragedy may not have happened. 

 

The Las Vegas shooter is probably the only shooter that I can think of that has shown no red flag or suspiciousness, unlike most other shooters. 



#1222 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 04 June 2019 - 07:33 AM

How the hell is universal background checks unconstitutional

 

Because it requires a gun registry.


He was buying a lot of guns in short period of time, that would have been a red flag to anyone but gun-loving whackos.

 

And after-birth abortion makes no sense, since fetuses out of the womb are alive and babies now. Northam said nothing wrong here, it's a discussion between mothers and their physicians who know better than shitty politicians who will do nothing about the gun problem. If they're carrying to third trimester, there's a pretty good chance that the only reason they'd advocate for abortion or not keeping the baby alive is because it won't live for long or will have a difficult life. 

 

How are you saying "not every state is entirely red or blue" and then go on to state that VA is a blue state? And even though republicans are the majority, even if by slim margin?

 

If it was a blue or purely blue state, then these gun control laws would have likely been passed, and the tragedy may not have happened. 

 

The Las Vegas shooter is probably the only shooter that I can think of that has shown no red flag or suspiciousness, unlike most other shooters. 

 

That's not a red flag, because he passed his federal background check.

 

Northam literally said the baby would be made comfortable.  That means the baby has already been born.  And then the doctor and the mother would discuss what to do with it.  That is literally after birth abortion.

 

Because not every voter votes red or blue in any state, but the state's representation is a majority blue or red.  The reason Virginia is blue is because the governor is blue and the leaders of the legislative branch are blue.  They also voted blue in the Presidential election.

 

These proposed laws that Northam wanted past, once again, would not have prevented this shooting.

 

This one.  He had no red flags.  He didn't even have a record before the shooting.  What were they going to find that was suspicious?



#1223 WNX

WNX

    Upper Midcard

  • Members
  • 2,547 posts
  • Location: 5 Miles from Ben and Jerry's
  • Gamertag: WebbanationX
  • SEN (PS3): WebbanationX

Posted 04 June 2019 - 09:31 PM

What's the difference between the federal and universal background checks? Is it just the registery part?

And the term "after birth abortion" is kinda an oxymoron. An abortion is a forceful termination of a pregnancy. If the kid is already born, there is no longer a pregnancy. Who coined that term?

#1224 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,243 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 09:56 PM

How is a gun registry uncostitutional? I find that it isn't, at all. But since you've made that claim, and you have mentioned numerous time that you are a constitutional law major, I'm really interested on your take on this.

 

First time heard about "after birth abortion"... tried googling it, but didn't come across any sensible explanation. 



#1225 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:33 PM

How is a gun registry uncostitutional? I find that it isn't, at all. But since you've made that claim, and you have mentioned numerous time that you are a constitutional law major, I'm really interested on your take on this.

 

First time heard about "after birth abortion"... tried googling it, but didn't come across any sensible explanation. 

 

Because it is in direct violation of the fifth amendment.  Haynes v. United States covered this.

 

https://www.tandfonl...058.2013.779661


What's the difference between the federal and universal background checks? Is it just the registery part?

And the term "after birth abortion" is kinda an oxymoron. An abortion is a forceful termination of a pregnancy. If the kid is already born, there is no longer a pregnancy. Who coined that term?

 

Correct.  Federal background checks researches your criminal history and other factors.  It goes through several different agencies. The drawback is that there is a three day maximum wait time.  If they are not done assessing you after three days, you are automatically cleared.  This is the issue I have.  I have no problem extending this to five days.  I also think that the agencies involved should have better resources at their disposal.

 

I'm not sure the official coinage, but I already addressed that up above with one of the several articles I found regarding the subject.

 

I hope this helps.



#1226 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,243 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:35 PM

It really doesnt't.
I asked for your take on this, and you are talking about something I can easily read about in 10 secs of using google... That case doesn't really cover how is it unconstitutional, unless... you are a fellon?
You don't incrimminate yourself if you say that you have a gun... Care to explain?

And that after birth abbortion... yeah that's the third link I found when googling it myself.
And I can't really say what you wanted to convey by linking it.

#1227 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:49 PM

It really doesnt't.
I asked for your take on this, and you are talking about something I can easily read about in 10 secs of using google... That case doesn't really cover how is it unconstitutional, unless... you are a fellon?
You don't incrimminate yourself if you say that you have a gun... Care to explain?

And that after birth abbortion... yeah that's the third link I found when googling it myself.
And I can't really say what you wanted to convey by linking it.

 

My take is if you are wanting to stop bad people from getting guns, registering guns isn't going to do anything because typically bad people are not allowed to have guns.  They then can't register the guns because they can't self-incriminate.  The firearms registration act then was updated to only require those that make, manufacture or import firearms to have to register for that reason.

 

Even if deemed constitutional in some far out universe, you would only be burdening law abiding gun owners because felons cannot self incriminate.  If you are trying to stop bad people from getting weapons, then you are doing yourself disservice to think that registering guns would actually work.

 

This was the most recent decision regarding gun registration.  It was Heller vs. DC.  The Supreme Court already found these registration regulations unconstitutional:

 

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today that several parts of the District’s gun registration law violate the Second Amendment. The court held the following provisions unconstitutional:

  • registered guns be re-registered every three years.
  • a gun must be physically brought to the D.C. police headquarters in order to registered.
  • persons seeking to register a gun must pass a test about firearms laws.
  • prohibition on registering more than one handgun per month.

Now think with your head for a second.  Without guns having to be reregistered, how is this going to help anything?

Your original post said you couldn't find anything.  So I linked something for you.  That was all I was trying to convey.


Edited by TheShape_1978, 04 June 2019 - 11:55 PM.


#1228 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,243 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:56 PM

Again,I asked for your take on why is it unconstitutional, not if "gun registry will stop "bad" people from getting guns".
And if you are registering your gun, you are self incriminating on what exactly?

My original post was saying that I couldn't find anything sensible on the matter. Yes, you linked "something".

#1229 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:59 PM

Again,I asked for your take on why is it unconstitutional, not if "gun registry will stop "bad" people from getting guns".
And if you are registering your gun, you are self incriminating on what exactly?

My original post was saying that I couldn't find anything sensible on the matter. Yes, you linked "something".

 

 

I did offer my take.  The actual issue of gun registration has not been brought before the Supreme Court yet.  The closest was Heller vs. DC, but Heller did not contest the actual registration requirement.  Just some of the restrictions that were in place for registration.

 

 

No, you said you couldn't find a "sensible explanation."


Edited by TheShape_1978, 04 June 2019 - 11:59 PM.


#1230 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,243 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:08 AM

Are you *censored*ing with me?

Again, how is it unconstitutional?

You are not saying absolutely anything.

And yes, that's what I said. What is your point? Are you reading your posts?

#1231 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:10 AM

Are you *censored*ing with me?

Again, how is it unconstitutional?

You are not saying absolutely anything.

And yes, that's what I said. What is your point? Are you reading your posts?

 

I just told you why it is unconstitutional.  You are placing an undue burden on law abiding citizens.  And yes, that is a legal argument when it comes to rights.  With felons not being required to register firearms, this places an undue burden on non-felons.  The registration process would be worthless, not to mention discriminatory.

 

I linked to you an article that describes what an after birth abortion is.  That is your sensible explanation.  It's literally in the first sentence of the article.


Edited by TheShape_1978, 05 June 2019 - 12:18 AM.


#1232 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,243 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:21 AM


Are you *censored*ing with me?

Again, how is it unconstitutional?

You are not saying absolutely anything.

And yes, that's what I said. What is your point? Are you reading your posts?

 
I just told you why it is unconstitutional.  You are placing an undue burden on law abiding citizens.  And yes, that is a legal argument when it comes to rights.  With felons not being required to register firearms, this places an undue burden on non-felons.  The registration process would be worthless.
 
I linked to you an article that describes what an after birth abortion is.  That is your sensible explanation.  It's literally in the first sentence of the article.

... right. It doesnt't even seem likeyou even read the article.

But back to guns...

you mean in the context and accordance to fifth ammendment? How exactly?

#1233 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:25 AM

 

 

Are you *censored*ing with me?

Again, how is it unconstitutional?

You are not saying absolutely anything.

And yes, that's what I said. What is your point? Are you reading your posts?

 
I just told you why it is unconstitutional.  You are placing an undue burden on law abiding citizens.  And yes, that is a legal argument when it comes to rights.  With felons not being required to register firearms, this places an undue burden on non-felons.  The registration process would be worthless.
 
I linked to you an article that describes what an after birth abortion is.  That is your sensible explanation.  It's literally in the first sentence of the article.

... right. It doesnt't even seem likeyou even read the article.

But back to guns...

you mean in the context and accordance to fifth ammendment? How exactly?

 

 

"Recently, two authors suggested that killing a healthy newborn might be morally permissible, subsuming it under the heading of ‘after birth abortion’." - First sentence of article

 

Two people are traveling separate from Parts Unknown to Washington D.C.  Washington D.C. has gun registration.  One of the persons is a felon.  The felon wouldnt be required to register his firearm because he cannot self-incriminate.  Meanwhile, the law-abiding citizen would be required to register his firearm.  It's discriminatory in nature and an undue burden on the law-abiding gun owner.



#1234 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,243 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:36 AM


 

 

Are you *censored*ing with me?

Again, how is it unconstitutional?

You are not saying absolutely anything.

And yes, that's what I said. What is your point? Are you reading your posts?

 
I just told you why it is unconstitutional.  You are placing an undue burden on law abiding citizens.  And yes, that is a legal argument when it comes to rights.  With felons not being required to register firearms, this places an undue burden on non-felons.  The registration process would be worthless.
 
I linked to you an article that describes what an after birth abortion is.  That is your sensible explanation.  It's literally in the first sentence of the article.
... right. It doesnt't even seem likeyou even read the article.

But back to guns...

you mean in the context and accordance to fifth ammendment? How exactly?
 
 

"Recently, two authors suggested that killing a healthy newborn might be morally permissible, subsuming it under the heading of after birth abortion." - First sentence of article


 
Two people are traveling separate from Parts Unknown to Washington D.C.  Washington D.C. has gun registration.  One of the persons is a felon.  The felon wouldnt be required to register his firearm because he cannot self-incriminate.  Meanwhile, the law-abiding citizen would be required to register his firearm.  It's discriminatory in nature and an undue burden on the law-abiding gun owner.

And this makes sense to you?

#1235 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:39 AM

 

 

 

 

Are you *censored*ing with me?

Again, how is it unconstitutional?

You are not saying absolutely anything.

And yes, that's what I said. What is your point? Are you reading your posts?

 
I just told you why it is unconstitutional.  You are placing an undue burden on law abiding citizens.  And yes, that is a legal argument when it comes to rights.  With felons not being required to register firearms, this places an undue burden on non-felons.  The registration process would be worthless.
 
I linked to you an article that describes what an after birth abortion is.  That is your sensible explanation.  It's literally in the first sentence of the article.
... right. It doesnt't even seem likeyou even read the article.

But back to guns...

you mean in the context and accordance to fifth ammendment? How exactly?
 
 

"Recently, two authors suggested that killing a healthy newborn might be morally permissible, subsuming it under the heading of after birth abortion." - First sentence of article


 
Two people are traveling separate from Parts Unknown to Washington D.C.  Washington D.C. has gun registration.  One of the persons is a felon.  The felon wouldnt be required to register his firearm because he cannot self-incriminate.  Meanwhile, the law-abiding citizen would be required to register his firearm.  It's discriminatory in nature and an undue burden on the law-abiding gun owner.

And this makes sense to you?

 

 

Yes.  I don't see how you are not grasping that registration is discriminatory in nature.



#1236 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,243 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:44 AM

It isn't in "nature". Bill of rights was not God or nature given, nor written.

So as a law abiding citizen, you are not concered that a felon might have a gun and pottentualy use it against you?

Because you have a gun also, and you can shoot him dead?

Edited by aono55, 05 June 2019 - 12:47 AM.


#1237 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,553 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:49 AM

How is a gun registry uncostitutional? I find that it isn't, at all. But since you've made that claim, and you have mentioned numerous time that you are a constitutional law major, I'm really interested on your take on this.

 

First time heard about "after birth abortion"... tried googling it, but didn't come across any sensible explanation. 

"After birth abortion" is just horseshit propaganda fed to masses who can't think and want to pretend they're pro-life while ignoring children getting shot by guns. Gun regulations aren't unconstitutional at all, they make the areas with stricter gun control laws safer. Politicians get paid money to make sure guns sell, but it doesn't make sense as to why most of the republican voters don't know any better. 

 

But then again, from what I've observe on Twitter and FB, it's easy or easier to brainwash republicans/the right. :\



#1238 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 03:51 AM

It isn't in "nature". Bill of rights was not God or nature given, nor written.

So as a law abiding citizen, you are not concered that a felon might have a gun and pottentualy use it against you?

Because you have a gun also, and you can shoot him dead?

 

Actually, a higher power gives us our rights that are in the Bill of Rights.  It is the reason that we are citizens, not subjects.

 

Subject's rights are given by government.

 

Citizen's rights are given by something higher than government.

 

Literally from the Declaration of Independence:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

I would much rather have the option of defending myself than not having the option.

 

The second amendment is to allow you to protect yourself from enemies foreign or domestic.  It is not reserved for the rich, and it is not reserved by sex or race.  This is why every citizen should have the right to own a gun.


 

How is a gun registry uncostitutional? I find that it isn't, at all. But since you've made that claim, and you have mentioned numerous time that you are a constitutional law major, I'm really interested on your take on this.

 

First time heard about "after birth abortion"... tried googling it, but didn't come across any sensible explanation. 

"After birth abortion" is just horseshit propaganda fed to masses who can't think and want to pretend they're pro-life while ignoring children getting shot by guns.

 

Gun regulations aren't unconstitutional at all, they make the areas with stricter gun control laws safer. Politicians get paid money to make sure guns sell, but it doesn't make sense as to why most of the republican voters don't know any better. 

 

But then again, from what I've observe on Twitter and FB, it's easy or easier to brainwash republicans/the right. :\

 

 

Not at all.  Two separate issues there buddy.

 

Regulations are constitutional.  We were speaking specifically about registration.  Politicians also do not get paid money to make sure guns sell.  That would be against the law.  The NRA is also a non-profit organization that is run strictly through donations.  They do contribute to politician's campaigns, but they do not pay any politician off.

 

Brainwash.  Okay.  That is why the right wing is making strides all over the earth right now.  Just tons of people brainwashed.


Edited by TheShape_1978, 05 June 2019 - 03:54 AM.


#1239 Mango kid

Mango kid

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 20,601 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 02:50 PM

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

Edited by Mango kid, 05 June 2019 - 02:51 PM.


#1240 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 04:00 PM

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 

No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.

 

Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.


Edited by TheShape_1978, 05 June 2019 - 04:01 PM.