Thread: Multiple dead in shooting at Colorado supermarket

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

The whole originalist argument is utter BS anyways.

Nothing then applies to the world now so why pretend that it does.

Could not agree more.
I don’t think the founding fathers envisioned a gun rights advocacy group with so much power, that they have most of the politicians of one party in their hip pocket.

Boulder gunman Ahmad Alissa, 21, is charged with ten counts of murder at grocery store where victims were getting vaccine shots: Cops reveal shooter 'lived most of his life in US' and was shot through leg in massacre

Boulder gunman Ahmad Alissa, 21, is charged with ten counts of murder at grocery store where victims were getting vaccine shots: Cops reveal shooter 'lived most of his life in US' and was shot through leg in massacre - Hide Out Now

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

I dont understand. Syrians are not white?

As far as the census goes , he's white. But common. A Syrian Muslim immigrant cannot count as a right wing domestic terrorist. Even though it will in the census to the glee of neo Jacobin left wingers.

Fox are doing what Fox does, propagandizing:



Yeah the Dems are coming for the guns that they said Obama (and multiple Dem POTUS before him) would take.

No empathy for the pain of those left behind or an ounce of prevention of future tragedies, just propaganda about the right of nutters to own weapons of mass murder and others to live in fear.

Looks more like 40 than 21.

^^And the UK is getting its equivalent of 'Fox' soon.



I suppose it will delight the likes of numpty and tax.

Originally Posted by cyrille

And the UK is getting its equivalent of 'Fox' soon.

Who woulda thunked it that a bald little weasel from Australia would transpire to be one of the most damaging anti-democracy agents of our time.

Originally Posted by cyrille

I suppose it will delight the likes of numpty and tax.

Some people just like to see the hate they harbor within reflected back.

God, these Septic fruit loop massacres are such a bore.

One truly does wonder at a society that permits its 328 million population to hold privately an arsenal of more than 350 million assorted weapons and yet expresses sorrow, surprise and outrage when yet another pea brained fuckwit blows his wad whilst blasting away with military style weaponry.

Age of The Stupid, I guess.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Who woulda thunked it that a bald little weasel from Australia would transpire to be one of the most damaging anti-democracy agents of our time.

What about his wife...Bryan Ferry....Mick Jagger...Rupert Gargoyle.

That's some trajectory.

I guess it keeps her well dressed though.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Only because we had the short video of him right away and he looked white. Plus the little bit of recency bias from the massage parlor shooter. Lefties thought they had a twofer in the bag. Now that muslims have taken the lead again, everyone will expect it to be a muslim again.

On the whole, there is no reason for anyone to believe shooting suspects will be white domestics. Just a couple that come to mind

Orlando nightclub shooting - Wikipedia

2015 San Bernardino attack - Wikipedia

My considered rebuttal:

Shut the fuck up you stupid c u n t.

A racist, beta-cuck, fuckwit such as yourself is probably only ever one simp bad day away from a small-cocked rampage yourself.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Fox are doing what Fox does, propagandizing:



Yeah the Dems are coming for the guns that they said Obama (and multiple Dem POTUS before him) would take.

No empathy for the pain of those left behind or an ounce of prevention of future tragedies, just propaganda about the right of nutters to own weapons of mass murder and others to live in fear.

There is the bubble headed bleach blond type I mentioned. Typical media twat.

Originally Posted by JPPR2

the bubble headed bleach blond type.

In fairness that often seems to be just a role they play.


Which says more about their audience than if it were truly them.

Originally Posted by cyrille

In fairness that often seems to be just a role they play.

On Ingraham in particular:

“I think she’s a monster”

That from her own brother.

“Our father was a Nazi sympathizer, racist, anti-Semite and homophobe. Like father like daughter?”

Originally Posted by Slick

“Well regulated” in historical parlance means “well equipped” “properly armed” “fully functional” etc.

No it doesn't you fucking tosser. It means "controlled", from the latin Regula ("Rule").

^ Thats Justin Trudau's former foreign minister

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland Is ‘Proud’ of Nazi Past | Observer

Originally Posted by beachbound

What is a militia?
At the time of the American Revolutionary War, militias were groups of able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states. "[When the Constitution was drafted], the militia was a state-based institution," says Rakove. "States were responsible for organizing this."
What did it mean to be well regulated?
One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge.




"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.”




https://constitutioncenter.org/image...CNN_Aug_11.pdf

It's easy to try and change the definition of words if you are a conservative. It doesn't, however, mean you are right.


c.f. Calling lies "Alternative facts".

^^Must have a Weimar connection, no?

Originally Posted by beachbound

Could not agree more.
I don’t think the founding fathers envisioned a gun rights advocacy group with so much power, that they have most of the politicians of one party in their hip pocket.

The second amendment was to placate slave owners and was a howling fucking mistake in the first place.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-sl...-2nd-amendment

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

No it doesn't you fucking tosser. It means "controlled", from the latin Regula ("Rule").

People like Slick don't actually understand the Constitution and think the 1st and 2nd Amendments are sacred but probably don't even know any of the others--certainly don't defend them with the same vigor.

Nobody is coming for their guns and if they are truly moron enough to think that and that they need guns to defend against their own government then they don't know how tanks work

'1. NRA overturns Boulder's restrictions on assault weapons.

2. Man immediately buys assault weapon, commits mass shooting days later.

3. GQP: 'Gun control laws would do nothing to stop these murders.''

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

and that they need guns to defend against their own government

they mean when their meth lab is raided

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The second amendment was to placate slave owners and was a howling fucking mistake in the first place.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-sl...-2nd-amendment

As I have read it, one of the main purposes of the second amendment was to provide a counter weight to federal power.

Scalia and others in a 5-4 decision basically decided that the whole first half of the sentence "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was basically nothing more than preamble, and that full weight fell on the second half "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"., and this averred a constitutional right to own guns for self defense.

A second 5-4 decision a few years later tagged the 2nd amendment to the 14th, and gutted the ability of States to enact limiting gun laws.

Somehow, that gets us where we are today, where both concealed carry and open carry are permissible in most states, and you get fucktards wandering the streets with high powered rifles.

But hey - you get what you get when your gun policy relies upon contentious interpretations of a single sentence that was written 230 years ago.......

^End of the day these amendments mean what they mean and it’s not even up for debate as to their intention or meaning. It’s all very clear and always has been. It gets muddy when nefarious actors try to circumvent these basic rights with laws and regulations. They do this because they know they can’t get a supermajority to change anything. Well regulated does not mean regulated, as in restricted, and “militia” is not tied to the state or government and under their control. It just isn’t. This has all been settled for a while now.

There is a clear way to change these amendments and if politicians don’t like the amendment or it’s wording or how it hamstrings them from being tyrants, then they need to change the amendment and or wording.

If the second is outdated and people hate it so much, change it. Simple as. If you don’t have enough support to do that, then you need to deal with it until you do, but trying to lie about serious things like basic rights that a nation was founded on... Not good.

Why people get so angry because they can’t just ignore this stuff and do whatever they want is beyond me but they do. Probably because they don’t actually want to understand the issues, they just want to moan and bitch and use as little headspace as possible.

Originally Posted by Slick

It’s all very clear and always has been. It gets muddy when nefarious actors try to circumvent these basic rights with laws and regulations. .

Think many would agree that Scalia was a "nefarious actor".......