14 Children and Teacher Killed in Texas Elementary School Shooting

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe more security at schools sure..even though the cop at my high school was useless and so were the cops at Uvalde.. and..Vegas..

But that still isn’t enough imo. There needs to be something done to gun legislation even if it’s light or harsh..can anyone who argues “everything but” at least agree that we as a nation need to look at regulation?

Nothing will ever be enough, that's the point.

So you dont start with the unconstitutional solution, that also won't be enough.

[Skarne]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Its so easy once you figure this out.

Because out of all the other solutions only one is unconstitutional: gun regulation.

No I disagree…the constitution says nothing about regulation…it’s the right to bear arms..

Taking away guns completely is off the table. Regulating weapons is.

[Jibartik]

Shall not be infringed.

It's called punctuation. The left thinks that the constitution doesnt have it.

But it does!

It says a well regulated militia is the meat and potatoes of a free nation, and the right to bear arms will not be infringed because bears are bad ass.

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Taking away guns completely is off the table. Regulating weapons is.

..in your mind.

[Jibartik]

The constitution says I can have a tank if I want but they didnt know that we'd have such a wide array of military equipment.

But the point of the 2nd amendment was specifically that the citizens be able to match the military power of the nation.

It was not added for personal protection, or hunting, it was added specifically to protect the freedom of the state from a overpowered government.

If we want to regulate our military to match what we regulate our citizens then OK not unconstitutional.

[Skarne]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shall not be infringed.

It's called punctuation. The left thinks that the constitution doesnt have it.

But it does!

It says a well regulated militia is the meat and potatoes of a free nation, and the right to bear arms will not be infringed because bears are bad ass.

But based on that logic it would be constitutional for anyone to own a gun despite the current regs..it’s just not realistic there’s a reason SCOTUS has ruled on this several times.

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But the point of the 2nd amendment was specifically that the citizens be able to match the military power of the nation.

the point of the 2nd was specifically that the Gov can't take away your ability to match (or exceed) the military power of the nation.. but that was before savvy commies with nothing to do with their lives other than grind their rotten STD-infected crotches on it.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No I disagree…the constitution says nothing about regulation…it’s the right to bear arms..

Taking away guns completely is off the table. Regulating weapons is.

Sorry bud, hundreds of children are going to continue to be sacrificed every year because paste eaters like Jib say that they'll try to overthrow the government again if we attempt to do anything about it.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The constitution says I can have a tank if I want but they didnt know that we'd have such a wide array of military equipment.

But the point of the 2nd amendment was specifically that the citizens be able to match the military power of the nation.

If we want to regulate our military to match what we regulate our citizens then OK not unconstitutional.

Citizens are probably pretty fucked if the US military was ever turned on them

We’d have to bank on the fact that the military, being composed of humans who have families, wouldn’t want to genocide people and defect (with their tech ideally)

Being aware the Nuremberg Defense is an immoral thing makes it easier to fight against now

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But based on that logic it would be constitutional for anyone to own a gun despite the current regs..it’s just not realistic there’s a reason SCOTUS has ruled on this several times.

Well yeah, im not going to argue that all the gun laws today are not unconstitutional, because they are.

But I agree we need some, dont get mad at me for just saying it like it is. With a purely constitutional SC we should be able to get rid of them all.

If you want me to say it like it "should be" then we should have a new america forged from the ashes of the old.