An exploration of the Second Amendment

TKDB

@Vaulk

Because the public as a whole deserves 1000% accountability for every legal, and illegally owned guns in the United States, all 400 plus million of them.

And the Second Amendment, with that gun accountability measure added to it, along with the Death Penalty language, amended to the Second Amendment as well.

Neither have been attempted before, and should be amended to the Second Amendment, because the Public, as a whole deserves that respect.

Because apparently, some of the pro gun supporters, and the Far Right Gun supporters, disagree with the above ideas?

And I guarantee that the NRA will balk at the ideas, along with the various gun manufacturers in the United States, and abroad.

Because, they have their various interests to protect?

Like some of the NRA individuals, telling some Doctors, to stay in their own lanes? 

Vaulk

@TKDB

I think maybe I'm doing a really really bad job at making my points because you don't seem to be addressing any of them.  I'll take the blame for that and finish by saying that, again, the Constitution of the United States has never and will never include penalties because it is not a penal code...it's a basis for our laws...it's not a law itself.  The constitution was designed to serve as a list of principles that should govern other parts of our law...it's not a book that we open when deciding what punishments to dole out when someone commits a crime.  What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works.  You can't just put laws wherever you want them to be and then claim that, because of their location within a document, they'll be more effective.

How does the location of the death penalty in a document make it more or less effective?

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

Don't mind him (TK), he's disingenuousness incarnate... He will never address your arguments, he never does... Look at the number of irrelevant or fallacious tags he collects on this site, it's quite telling...  

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

I'm not a Whole Truth disciple of yours John.

I have nothing to add to your individual Whole Truth conversation. 

Technically TKDB what you are saying is you believe in the liberty to not explain details for whatever you say as it explains a cost to others, We are discussing American United State Constitution.

How much money is a fair price to pay to purchase a gun from a state licensed gun owner?

Make a legal offer $1,000.00 - $2,000.00 each?

Are you going to buy them back by make and model with added compensation for expenses that have occurred?

Stop instigating trouble and discontent to tranquility by the threat the theft it is unbecoming of honor. 

TKDB

@John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen

@ZeusAres42

@Vaulk

I stand firm with my pro family, and public stance.

That the Second Amendment, has a million plus gun violence crimes, victims blood on its very own words.

And some of the Pro Gun Extremists, and the far Right Pro Gun supporters, and maybe even the NRA itself, is in denial of those victims blood staining the Second Amendment, along with the Bill Of Rights.

And on an additional note, where does it say, in the Second Amendment, that any gun owner, is allowed to have 47 guns? 
Or more than enough to arm half a platoon of people?

What are some trying to act like, they are acting as their own defense organization?

How many Guns, or rounds fired, does it take to pacify an extremist, gun owner?

It makes one wonder, are some self paranoid, over the self created conspiracies, created from their own thought processes?

Because the public as a whole deserves 1000% accountability for every legal, and illegally owned guns in the United States, all 400 plus million of them.

And the Second Amendment, with that gun accountability measure added to it, along with the Death Penalty language, amended to the Second Amendment as well.

Neither have been attempted before, and should be amended to the Second Amendment, because the Public, as a whole deserves that respect.

Because apparently, some of the pro gun supporters, and the Far Right Gun supporters, disagree with the above ideas?

And I guarantee that the NRA will balk at the ideas, along with the various gun manufacturers in the United States, and abroad.

Because, they have their various interests to protect?

Like some of the NRA individuals, telling some Doctors, to stay in their own lanes?  

TKDB

@John_C_87

My honor is intact.

I'm not like the NRA, telling Doctors to stay in their own lanes.

Or finding websites, that have pro gun Doctors on it, to use as a counter arguments, to the website that I shared.

@CYDdharta, what was that about?

Using your pro gun Doctors website, to defend your GUNS, and maybe the NRA, as well?

I smell gun oil, gun money, and gun powder, seething, from some, and their imaginations?

@John_C_87

"Stop instigating trouble and discontent to tranquility by the threat the theft it is unbecoming of honor."

TKDB

@CYDdharta

@ZeusAres42

@Vaulk

@John_C_87

How's your pro gun honor doing? 

ZeusAres42

Vaulk said:

@TKDB

I think maybe I'm doing a really really bad job at making my points because you don't seem to be addressing any of them.  I'll take the blame for that and finish by saying that, again, the Constitution of the United States has never and will never include penalties because it is not a penal code...it's a basis for our laws...it's not a law itself.  The constitution was designed to serve as a list of principles that should govern other parts of our law...it's not a book that we open when deciding what punishments to dole out when someone commits a crime.  What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works.  You can't just put laws wherever you want them to be and then claim that, because of their location within a document, they'll be more effective.

How does the location of the death penalty in a document make it more or less effective?

Rest assured Vaulk you most certainly are not doing  a bad job at all making your points. He however is doing a great job of ignoring your points on here. I do wish you good luck going down this path. I myself started off patient, charitable, giving the benefit of doubt etc but to no avail, and so now I myself am done with him for good.

He continues to argue as if he is the one that is always morally superior and that anyone that even challenges the minor of his words (doesn't matter what they say) is somehow wrong, a bad person, and morally inferior to him; that is how his mind works and it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

His next response after this will be something a long the lines of saying that there is something wrong with the way my mind works and that he doesn't care how I view his arguments or some rubbish along those lines; the guy is predictable too.

TKDB

@Vaulk

@ZeusAres42



To the pro gun crowd,
To the pro gun extremists,
To the Far Right gun supporters groups,
and to the NRA itself,
Is the NRA, a Political Power Organization?

I'm wondering, how much of a Campaign donation, has been given to the current POTUS, since before the previous Election cycle?

Fresh off the Internet Press:

https://amp-theatlantic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/596413/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/trump-background-checks-nra/596413/ 

POLITICS

"Trump’s Phone Calls With Wayne LaPierre Reveal NRA’s Influence

Days after considering the implementation of universal background checks, President Donald Trump has sidelined the issue."

ELAINA PLOTT

5:13 PM ET

"Three days after a pair of mass shootings in Ohio and Texas that left 31 people dead, President Donald Trump was preoccupied with visions of a Rose Garden ceremony.

His daughter and senior adviser, Ivanka Trump, had proposed the idea of a televised Rose Garden appearance as a way to nudge her father toward supporting universal background checks. The president had recently suggested he was open to the gun-control measure, tweeting, “Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform.” To be sure, this was similar to how he’d responded to other mass shootings during his 31-month presidency, and each time, the push for action fizzled. But the prospect of a Rose Garden ceremony, his daughter thought, where Trump could sign a document and call it “historic” and “unprecedented”—and receive positive media attention—might be the best chance of yielding real change."

"For a moment, it looked like it just might work. “He loved it. He was all spun up about it,” said a former senior White House official who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke with me on the condition of anonymity in order to share private conversations. On August 7, the president picked up the phone to discuss the idea with Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “It’s going to be great, Wayne,” Trump said, according to both a former senior White House official and an NRA official briefed on the call. “They will love us.” And if they—meaning the roughly 5 million people who make up the NRA’s active membership, and some of Trump’s electoral base—didn’t, Trump reportedly assured LaPierre, “I’ll give you cover.” (The White House did not return a request for comment for this story.) "

I wonder why the White House, didn't comment, on the story?

“Wayne’s listening to that and thinking, Uh, no, Mr. President, we give you cover,” the former senior White House official said in describing the conversation. The president reportedly asked LaPierre whether the NRA was willing to give in at all on background checks. LaPierre’s response, the sources said, was unequivocal: “No.” With that, “the Rose Garden fantasy,” as the NRA official described it to me, was scrapped as quickly as it had been dreamed up."

"Earlier this afternoon, according to a person briefed on the call, the president told LaPierre in another phone call that universal background checks were off the table. “He was cementing his stance that we already have background checks and that he’s not waffling on this anymore,” the source told me. “He doesn’t want to pursue it.” In the call, the source added, Trump said he wanted to focus now on “increasing funding” for mental-health care and directing attorneys general across the country to start prosecuting “gun crime” through federal firearms charges from the Justice Department."

"The NRA has been consumed by internal strife in recent months, including attempted coupsfrom within, investigations into questionable spending by top executives, and a messy battlewith its former advertising agency—all of which the group’s officials calmly refer to as “family issues.” Accordingly, many have speculated that the gun lobby’s clout is not what it once was, that its so-called family issues have caused the NRA’s grip on the GOP to soften. But as the conversations between Trump and LaPierre show, the NRA continues to influence gun policy, or lack thereof, in the Republican Party. Even with its leadership in disarray, the group has once more ensured that modest gun-control efforts are a nonstarter, turning a president who once boasted that he wasn’t “afraid” of the NRA into one of its most reliable advocates."

"Other factors indicate that Trump likely will not pursue the issue of background checks. According to a White House official, while there was some chatter after the El Paso and Dayton shootings that the White House’s Office of Legal Counsel might look into executive action on background checks, nothing ever came of it. The official told me that apart from one Justice Department staffer being brought in to look into federal firearms charges, gun policy remains largely untouched. Added to that is the fact that few, if any, White House staffers have a particular interest or background in gun policy (the official told me the special assistant currently assigned to these issues mainly focuses on education policy)."

"Nothing with this president is ever certain, but the position Trump communicated in his call to LaPierre—who was once an ardent advocate of universal background checks—mirrors the one he expressed to reporters on Sunday. “People don’t realize, we have very strong background checks right now. You go in to buy a gun, you have to sign up. There are a lot of background checks that have been approved over the years, so I’ll have to see what it is,” Trump said on the tarmac before departing his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, for Washington."

"At the time, his words seemed to indicate a softening of sorts, as though Trump had completed the transition from wanting to seriously consider universal background checks to being dead set against them. But sources close to this president told me that Trump’s eventual siding with the NRA was never in question. “Trump always knew where he had to end up,” a GOP operative in constant contact with the White House told me."

"The gun lobby certainly made sure of it. Over the past two weeks, even after quickly batting down Trump’s Rose Garden fantasy, NRA officials continued to flood the White House and Congress alike with calls. They communicated with White House staffers, if not the president himself, up to several times a day. According to the NRA official, there was even talk of LaPierre joining Trump last week in Bedminster. "

"This is not to say it was easy for the NRA to change Trump’s mind. Following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Ivanka Trump made several calls to GOP lawmakers in an effort to mobilize support for both universal background checks and so-called red-flag laws, which would allow law enforcement or family members to keep guns from individuals deemed to be dangerous by a court order. But if her influence was in any way an obstacle for the gun group, it was short-lived: By the middle of last week, she and her family had decamped for a vacation in Wyoming, seemingly putting the issue on the back burner, and last night she appeared at House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s donor retreat in Jackson Hole. According to Axios, Ivanka told the audience in Wyoming that the White House is still focused on background checks. Less than 24 hours later, her father reportedly assured LaPierre of the opposite. (A spokesperson for Ivanka Trump did not return a request for comment.)

Three NRA officials told me they’ve focused their efforts in the past week on walking Trump through nearly 40 mass shootings in which the gunmen obtained their firearms legally. “Once he understood” that universal background checks would not have prevented many of these massacres, according to the first former senior White House official, “the temperature changed.” They were heartened, then, to hear Trump tell the crowd at his rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, last Thursday that gun violence was mainly a “mental-illness problem” and that “it is not the gun that pulls the trigger; it is the person holding the gun.” "

"The only worry now, the former senior White House official told me, is that once Congress returns from recess and talk of gun-control legislation restarts, Trump will change his mind yet again. White House and NRA officials alike fear a repeat of a moment that took place after the Parkland, Florida, massacre in February 2018, when Trump convened a bipartisan group of lawmakers and suggested, on television, an assault-weapons ban as part of a gun-reform package. (No such plan was brought to fruition.)

However, an NRA spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, told me that any new move from the White House would come with a price. “To those who know our members and understand the issue, they realize that if they support any ban, registration scheme, or other draconian gun-control measures, our members will demand accountability,” he said. “And our members have long memories.”

Christian Paz contributed reporting. "

Now the NRA, is educating the U.S. public, on how they do things?

I wonder, who is in charge of the Second Amendment?

The NRA, the pro gun extremists, the Far Right Pro Gun supporters, or maybe the POTUS, is?

Because there's really no clarity, is there?

The above article, seems to speak, to that absence of clarity? 

Because, it's obvious, that any of the innocent people killed by lawful, and unlawful guns, aren't getting a fair, and equal voice, or say, when it comes to how the country as a whole, is being managed by either the NRA, the pro gun extremists, the Far Right Pro Gun support, or maybe the POTUS?

Can any of the Pro Gun crowd, explain, that absence of clarity, when it comes to the lawfully, and unlawfully owned guns, that are fully unaccounted for, that have killed US citizens, for decades now? 

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

So why is that you think the people that save lives with guns from bad people with guns are evil? What makes you think that the guys that don't want to be victims and help to make sure that other people also are not killed are somehow pro-gunned extremists?

Why is it that you think that these people that are doing some good in the world are somehow evil pro-gun extremists?

ZeusAres42

I know I said I was done with TKDB, but that was only with trying to have a serious discussion which has proven impossible. So, while I got a bit of time on my hands I might as well just play his childish game.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Educate yourself on the below.

The NRA, just gained itself, a Nationwide audience today, through its interactions with the POTUS.

Power, I guess, can have its various 
privileges, huh?


To the pro gun crowd,
To the Far Right gun supporters groups,
and to the NRA itself,
Is the NRA, a Political Power Organization?

I'm wondering, how much of a Campaign donation, has been given to the current POTUS, since before the previous Election cycle?

Fresh off the Internet Press:

https://amp-theatlantic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/596413/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/trump-background-checks-nra/596413/ 

POLITICS

"Trump’s Phone Calls With Wayne LaPierre Reveal NRA’s Influence

Days after considering the implementation of universal background checks, President Donald Trump has sidelined the issue."

ELAINA PLOTT

5:13 PM ET

"Three days after a pair of mass shootings in Ohio and Texas that left 31 people dead, President Donald Trump was preoccupied with visions of a Rose Garden ceremony.

His daughter and senior adviser, Ivanka Trump, had proposed the idea of a televised Rose Garden appearance as a way to nudge her father toward supporting universal background checks. The president had recently suggested he was open to the gun-control measure, tweeting, “Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform.” To be sure, this was similar to how he’d responded to other mass shootings during his 31-month presidency, and each time, the push for action fizzled. But the prospect of a Rose Garden ceremony, his daughter thought, where Trump could sign a document and call it “historic” and “unprecedented”—and receive positive media attention—might be the best chance of yielding real change."

"For a moment, it looked like it just might work. “He loved it. He was all spun up about it,” said a former senior White House official who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke with me on the condition of anonymity in order to share private conversations. On August 7, the president picked up the phone to discuss the idea with Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “It’s going to be great, Wayne,” Trump said, according to both a former senior White House official and an NRA official briefed on the call. “They will love us.” And if they—meaning the roughly 5 million people who make up the NRA’s active membership, and some of Trump’s electoral base—didn’t, Trump reportedly assured LaPierre, “I’ll give you cover.” (The White House did not return a request for comment for this story.) "

I wonder why the White House, didn't comment, on the story?

“Wayne’s listening to that and thinking, Uh, no, Mr. President, we give you cover,” the former senior White House official said in describing the conversation. The president reportedly asked LaPierre whether the NRA was willing to give in at all on background checks. LaPierre’s response, the sources said, was unequivocal: “No.” With that, “the Rose Garden fantasy,” as the NRA official described it to me, was scrapped as quickly as it had been dreamed up."

"Earlier this afternoon, according to a person briefed on the call, the president told LaPierre in another phone call that universal background checks were off the table. “He was cementing his stance that we already have background checks and that he’s not waffling on this anymore,” the source told me. “He doesn’t want to pursue it.” In the call, the source added, Trump said he wanted to focus now on “increasing funding” for mental-health care and directing attorneys general across the country to start prosecuting “gun crime” through federal firearms charges from the Justice Department."

"The NRA has been consumed by internal strife in recent months, including attempted coupsfrom within, investigations into questionable spending by top executives, and a messy battlewith its former advertising agency—all of which the group’s officials calmly refer to as “family issues.” Accordingly, many have speculated that the gun lobby’s clout is not what it once was, that its so-called family issues have caused the NRA’s grip on the GOP to soften. But as the conversations between Trump and LaPierre show, the NRA continues to influence gun policy, or lack thereof, in the Republican Party. Even with its leadership in disarray, the group has once more ensured that modest gun-control efforts are a nonstarter, turning a president who once boasted that he wasn’t “afraid” of the NRA into one of its most reliable advocates."

"Other factors indicate that Trump likely will not pursue the issue of background checks. According to a White House official, while there was some chatter after the El Paso and Dayton shootings that the White House’s Office of Legal Counsel might look into executive action on background checks, nothing ever came of it. The official told me that apart from one Justice Department staffer being brought in to look into federal firearms charges, gun policy remains largely untouched. Added to that is the fact that few, if any, White House staffers have a particular interest or background in gun policy (the official told me the special assistant currently assigned to these issues mainly focuses on education policy)."

"Nothing with this president is ever certain, but the position Trump communicated in his call to LaPierre—who was once an ardent advocate of universal background checks—mirrors the one he expressed to reporters on Sunday. “People don’t realize, we have very strong background checks right now. You go in to buy a gun, you have to sign up. There are a lot of background checks that have been approved over the years, so I’ll have to see what it is,” Trump said on the tarmac before departing his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, for Washington."

"At the time, his words seemed to indicate a softening of sorts, as though Trump had completed the transition from wanting to seriously consider universal background checks to being dead set against them. But sources close to this president told me that Trump’s eventual siding with the NRA was never in question. “Trump always knew where he had to end up,” a GOP operative in constant contact with the White House told me."

"The gun lobby certainly made sure of it. Over the past two weeks, even after quickly batting down Trump’s Rose Garden fantasy, NRA officials continued to flood the White House and Congress alike with calls. They communicated with White House staffers, if not the president himself, up to several times a day. According to the NRA official, there was even talk of LaPierre joining Trump last week in Bedminster. "

"This is not to say it was easy for the NRA to change Trump’s mind. Following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Ivanka Trump made several calls to GOP lawmakers in an effort to mobilize support for both universal background checks and so-called red-flag laws, which would allow law enforcement or family members to keep guns from individuals deemed to be dangerous by a court order. But if her influence was in any way an obstacle for the gun group, it was short-lived: By the middle of last week, she and her family had decamped for a vacation in Wyoming, seemingly putting the issue on the back burner, and last night she appeared at House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s donor retreat in Jackson Hole. According to Axios, Ivanka told the audience in Wyoming that the White House is still focused on background checks. Less than 24 hours later, her father reportedly assured LaPierre of the opposite. (A spokesperson for Ivanka Trump did not return a request for comment.)

Three NRA officials told me they’ve focused their efforts in the past week on walking Trump through nearly 40 mass shootings in which the gunmen obtained their firearms legally. “Once he understood” that universal background checks would not have prevented many of these massacres, according to the first former senior White House official, “the temperature changed.” They were heartened, then, to hear Trump tell the crowd at his rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, last Thursday that gun violence was mainly a “mental-illness problem” and that “it is not the gun that pulls the trigger; it is the person holding the gun.” "

"The only worry now, the former senior White House official told me, is that once Congress returns from recess and talk of gun-control legislation restarts, Trump will change his mind yet again. White House and NRA officials alike fear a repeat of a moment that took place after the Parkland, Florida, massacre in February 2018, when Trump convened a bipartisan group of lawmakers and suggested, on television, an assault-weapons ban as part of a gun-reform package. (No such plan was brought to fruition.)

However, an NRA spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, told me that any new move from the White House would come with a price. “To those who know our members and understand the issue, they realize that if they support any ban, registration scheme, or other draconian gun-control measures, our members will demand accountability,” he said. “And our members have long memories.”

Christian Paz contributed reporting. "

Now the NRA, is educating the U.S. public, on how they do things?

I wonder, who is in charge of the Second Amendment?

The NRA, the pro gun extremists, the Far Right Pro Gun supporters, or maybe the POTUS, is?

Because there's really no clarity, is there?

The above article, seems to speak, to that absence of clarity? 

Because, it's obvious, that any of the innocent people killed by lawful, and unlawful guns, aren't getting a fair, and equal voice, or say, when it comes to how the country as a whole, is being managed by either the NRA, the pro gun extremists, the Far Right Pro Gun support, or maybe the POTUS?

Can any of the Pro Gun crowd, explain, that absence of clarity, when it comes to the lawfully, and unlawfully owned guns, that are fully unaccounted for, that have killed US citizens, for decades now? 

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

So why is it that you think good people that save lives are uneducated people, and are also all pro-gun extremists? Why does your brain swing this way do you think?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

"So why is it that you think good people that save lives are uneducated people,"

Who said, that I said, that I think good people that save lives are uneducated people?

(Show me, my quotation?)

"and are also all pro-gun extremists? Why does your brain swing this way do you think?"

My stance is this: 

I'm pro family, and pro Bill of Rights.

Because the public as a whole deserves 1000% accountability for every legal, and illegally owned guns in the United States, all 400 plus million of them.

And the Public, isnt getting that pro family, and pro Bill of Rights clarity.

Because the Second Amendment, is unfair, and unequal, to that clarity. 

ZeusAres42

So why is that you think people good responsible people with guns that do no harm, and even help to save others from bad people with guns are unfair? Exactly who do you think they're being unfair to? Isn't it not good and fair that they actually save other peoples lives? Why is that you also see them in the same light as you see all bad criminals with guns that intend to cause harm? Why do you think your mind works in this way?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

You know what?

Go ask the NRA here in the United States, your questions?

I'm pro family, and pro life, in the face of the gun violence crimes, that have been killing innocent people, for decades. 

From the NRA, via Twitter:

"I spoke to the president today. We discussed the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies. @realDonaldTrump is a strong #2A President and supports our Right to Keep and Bear Arms! – Wayne LaPierre"

@ZeusAres42

"So why is that you think people good responsible people with guns that do no harm, and even help to save others from bad people with guns are unfair? Exactly who do you think they're being unfair to? Isn't it not good and fair that they actually save other peoples lives? Why is that you also see them in the same light as you see all bad criminals with guns that intend to cause harm? Why do you think your mind works in this way?"

Ask the NRA, why their Organization, works in the way it does in the U.S.?

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

You know what?

Go ask the NRA here in the United States, your questions?

I'm pro family, and pro life, in the face of the gun violence crimes, that have been killing innocent people, for decades. 

From the NRA, via Twitter:

"I spoke to the president today. We discussed the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies. @realDonaldTrump is a strong #2A President and supports our Right to Keep and Bear Arms! – Wayne LaPierre"

"So why is that you think people good responsible people with guns that do no harm, and even help to save others from bad people with guns are unfair? Exactly who do you think they're being unfair to? Isn't it not good and fair that they actually save other peoples lives? Why is that you also see them in the same light as you see all bad criminals with guns that intend to cause harm? Why do you think your mind works in this way?"

Ask the NRA, why their Organization, works in the way it does in the U.S.?

Why would I ask them when it's you that is the one that thinks good responsible people with Guns are bad pro-extremist people, which you demonstrate via your previous posts? It's you the one that expresses contempt via your previous posts towards those good people with guns that save lives.

So why is that you're not actually pro-family, pro-life or any of those things you claim because otherwise you would be expressing yourself in this way which your previous demonstrate that your not. Why is that you think your brain operates in this way? So why is do you think you tend to think these things about yourself and then express yourself in a contradictory way?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

In regards to the Second Amendment, the NRA, and Trump on Twitter:

@loisbeckett

"The overwhelming majority of Americans don't own guns. Dedicated gun rights activists are a minority within that minority. Pro-gun activists are deeply aware of this fact. Less than 10% of gun owners are NRA members, per best estimates. Less than 30% of Americans own a gun."

From the NRA, via Twitter:

"I spoke to the president today. We discussed the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies. @realDonaldTrump is a strong #2APresident and supports our Right to Keep and Bear Arms! – Wayne LaPierre"

"In response to Trump calling gun control measures a "slippery slope," @fred_guttenberg says the real slippery slope is the deregulation of guns that contributed to his daughter's murder in Parkland. "It is the ultimate NRA talking point." #Hardball"

@emptywheel

·

2h

"It's the most Trump thing ever to prostrate himself before Wayne LaPierre even as the NRA is falling apart."

@rweingarten

·

9m

"Once again..Trump side’s with

@nra

over people when it comes to gun violence.. Trump says no to any attempt to keep military style weapons out of the hands of domestic terrorists Quote Tweet"

@DavidJollyFL

· 58m

"Earlier this afternoon ... the president told LaPierre ... universal background checks were off the table. 'He was cementing his stance that we already have background checks and that he’s not waffling on this anymore.'" via @elainaplott https://theatlantic.com/politics/archi"

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

What's that got to do with your contempt for good decent people that possess guns and use those guns to save lives? I asked this :

Why would I ask them when it's you that is the one that thinks good responsible people with Guns are bad pro-extremist people, which you demonstrate via your previous posts? It's you the one that expresses contempt via your previous posts towards those good people with guns that save lives.

So why is that you're not actually pro-family, pro-life or any of those things you claim because otherwise you would be expressing yourself in this way which your previous demonstrate that your not. Why is that you think your brain operates in this way? So why is do you think you tend to think these things about yourself and then express yourself in a contradictory way?

Also, why is it you think all good law-abiding people with guns are extremists that don't care for laws about criminals having and using guns even thought this is not even factually correct about good law-abiding people, but you continue to view these people as such? Why is it that you think your brain sees law-abiding citizens as criminals? Why don't you think about that a minute? Have you considered seeing a shrink maybe for your delusional mind set?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Because you're unhappy, with how various individuals on Twitter, are viewing the gun violence issues, in the United States?

It's amazing, that these individuals, are educating the Global community, on how the gun violence crimes, are affecting people from all over.

Do you have a counter argument, for those Twitter participants, or are you just going to focus on me, with your pro gun rhetoric? 

Let me guess, its easier to go after me, isnt it?

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

Because you're unhappy, with how various individuals on Twitter, are viewing the gun violence issues, in the United States?

It's amazing, that these individuals, are educating the Global community, on how the gun violence crimes, are affecting people from all over.

Do you have a counter argument, for those Twitter participants, or are you just going to focus on me, with your pro gun rhetoric? 

Let me guess, its easier to go after me, isnt it?

So you're unhappy, with how various individuals on Twitter, are celebrating and applauding the good work done by people who saved innocent people's lives and happened to have a good resource to be able to prevent imminent deaths and harm?

Why would you want innocent victims to suffer?

It's amazing how you like to educate the public on how appalling these good decent, responsible people are. Do you have a counter argument to those people on twitter applauding the facts that people got saved and lives spared? Or are you going to continue to focus on me if with your anti-good person, anti-family, and anti-law abiding rhetoric?

Let me guess, it's much easier to focus on me, isn't it? Let's face it, you never really address what is ever being said by anyone on this debate site; only attack the person and ignore the arguments from others. Why is it that you think your brain operates in this way? I invite you to do a little self-examination if you are capable of doing so but I doubt it.

TKDB

To the pro gun crowd, it's easier to focus on the citizens who are focusing on the equal and fair treatment, of not being killed by gun violence, isnt it?


@Vaulk

@ZeusAres42

@Plaffelvohfen

@NRA

March For Our Lives

@AMarch4OurLives

"Imagine being a puppet to the gun lobby. Couldn’t be us, lol."

"Trump’s Phone Calls With Wayne LaPierre Reveal NRA’s Influence

theatlantic.com "

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

To the pro gun crowd, it's easier to focus on the citizens who are focusing on the equal and fair treatment, of not being killed by gun violence, isnt it?

You would know, you ignore the people who's lives are saved by guns.  It must be much easier to ignore them, as you do, then acknowledge them and admit the issue isn't as straight-forward as you present it.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

@ZeusAres42

"You would know, you ignore the people who's lives are saved by guns."

My life hasnt been saved by a gun.

No one I know has been saved by a gun.

And I'm not a supporter of any organization, that wants to stand in the way of the United States and its citizens, like the NRA is?

Because, it's obvious, that any of the innocent people killed by lawful, and unlawful guns, aren't getting a fair, and equal voice, or say, when it comes to how the country as a whole, is being managed by either the NRA, the pro gun extremists, the Far Right Pro Gun support, or maybe the POTUS?

Can any of the Pro Gun crowd, explain, that absence of clarity, when it comes to the lawfully, and unlawfully owned guns, that are fully unaccounted for, that have killed US citizens, for decades now?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

@CYDdharta


From Twitter:

@loisbeckett

"The overwhelming majority of Americans don't own guns. Dedicated gun rights activists are a minority within that minority. Pro-gun activists are deeply aware of this fact. Less than 10% of gun owners are NRA members, per best estimates. Less than 30% of Americans own a gun."

This lady describes the whole situation eloquently. 

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

And do you make it a Practice, to take my words, and then twist them around to make arguments with?

My words:

(Because you're unhappy, with how various individuals on Twitter, are viewing the gun violence issues, in the United States?

It's amazing, that these individuals, are educating the Global community, on how the gun violence crimes, are affecting people from all over.

Do you have a counter argument, for those Twitter participants, or are you just going to focus on me, with your pro gun rhetoric? 

Let me guess, its easier to go after me, isnt it?)


@ZeusAres42

Your words?

"So you're unhappy, with how various individuals on Twitter, are celebrating and applauding the good work done by people who saved innocent people's lives and happened to have a good resource to be able to prevent imminent deaths and harm?

Why would you want innocent victims to suffer?

It's amazing how you like to educate the public on how appalling these good decent, responsible people are. Do you have a counter argument to those people on twitter applauding the facts that people got saved and lives spared? Or are you going to continue to focus on me if with your anti-good person, anti-family, and anti-law abiding rhetoric? 

Let me guess, it's much easier to focus on me, isn't it?"


"Let's face it, you never really address what is ever being said by anyone on this debate site; only attack the person and ignore the arguments from others. Why is it that you think your brain operates in this way? I invite you to do a little self-examination if you are capable of doing so but I doubt it."

I didn't attack anyone.

Some of the lawful, and unlawful gun owners, have done the attacking, via their unlawful killing of innocent U.S. citizens?

Is the NRAs, way of thinking, and standing in the Publics way of creating more gun laws, or amending the Second Amendment with the Death Penalty language, and 1000% gun accountability, fair to the REST of the country that doesn't own a gun?

And your way of thinking, is to ask me why my brain operates as it does?

I'm not some of the individual gun owners, who are apparently, letting, owning a gun dictate the words that comes out of their mouths, who are maybe U.S. citizens, or U.K. citizens?

That isn't an attack on anyone, it's an observation on some of the gun ownership attitudes.

(Just like some on Twitter, are making observations of their own?)

Because there are murderers who have ignored the lives that they took because of the unlawful gun crimes, that they committed, and you're telling me, that I'm ignoring the arguments from other's?

It's educational to read, what anonymous names on the internet can say to others? 

To make their pro gun mindset arguments? 

Some guns get more love, than life, and family did, by those who have killed with their guns.

But that observation will get ignored, because another individual with a gun, who can save lives, apparently thinks more of a gun, than the apparent humanity around them? 

@CYDdharta

@ZeusAres42

You two could go on Twitter, and challenge those, who are expressing their observations couldn't you?

TKDB

https://beta-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/parkland-students-unveil-sweeping-gun-control-proposal-and-hope-for-a-youth-voting-surge-in-2020/2019/08/20/145f4574-c36f-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

Politics

"Parkland students unveil sweeping gun-control proposal and hope for a youth voting surge in 2020"

By Jacqueline Alemany and Matt Viser 

August 21, 2019 at 6:30 AM EDT

"The student activists who crashed the political arena after the mass shooting last year at their high school in Parkland, Fla., are throwing their weight behind a new and ambitious gun-control program that they hope will set the tone for the debate following the most recent mass shootings and headed into the 2020 elections."

I support the March For Our Lives organization.

From Twitter:

"Let’s create a safer America. Text CHANGE to 954-954 to join the movement."

"To take on this crisis, we need to think big. To take on corrupt powers that be, we have to be strategic. To take on violence, we have to be pro-peace. Introducing: A Peace Plan for a Safer America. Created by survivors, so you don’t have to be one."

A Peace Plan for a Safer America

marchforourlives.com 

March For Our Lives

@AMarch4OurLives

·

10m

Replying to

@AMarch4OurLives

"Nearly two years ago, we created this organization out of crisis. We waited for solutions. But we’re not waiting anymore. Read our #PeacePlan - a no-holds-barred, comprehensive platform to drive real change."

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

(TKDB claims) My honor is intact.

No, your honor is not in tact. It has been sacrificed for a principle of unlawful punishment. How much is to be paid in reparation per gun to gun owners? The United state described as a crime does not exist for all gun owners, this means a price of compensation is required for an organized buy-back offer made on gun’s that the public wishes to have taken away from private ownership.

Are the gun licensing fee’s going to be refunded along with all money paid in connection for the gun ownership?

The concern here is that no public expectation exists or has been presented openly that separates the government form the act of taking personal property that does not belong to them. In many cases this is a felony crime. Ordered by people who are outside the election process. If you have honor defend this action and these people provide the compensation in $ please.

My offer is $2,000.00 Dollars every $500.00 Dollars spent on a gun. This way we are not instigating an issue of crime. Is this fair to you?

IN: —used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in

Tact:

 A keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense.

 sensitive mental or aesthetic perception.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tact

X  intact: untouched especially by anything that harms or diminishes

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intact

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

@CYDdharta


From Twitter:

@loisbeckett

"The overwhelming majority of Americans don't own guns. Dedicated gun rights activists are a minority within that minority. Pro-gun activists are deeply aware of this fact. Less than 10% of gun owners are NRA members, per best estimates. Less than 30% of Americans own a gun."

This lady describes the whole situation eloquently. 

From Twitter:

@FranCifelli

~"The duration of a GUN attack is always dictated by the arrival of a second GUN"~ ~

~Greg Gutfeld~

This lady describes the whole situation eloquently.

John_C_87

I empathize with the young adults and wish them luck, they do not have to take on the pressures and responsibility of lethal force as a united state on their own behalf or family’s. The  wonder is have they been properly informed of their projected cost, have they made any offer to purchase private property they wish to control by use of manipulating United State Constitutional law? What number value does the group offer to gun owners across the Country? Though 1st Amendment this is not a freedom of speech issue it is an open filed public grievance by legal civil precedent, in preserving constitution have they been told of this American united state constitutional right? Does a peaceful assembly start with a declaration of united state in the known assigned cost they wish imposing on themselves to preserve tranquility?

If the scenes of crime had been all unarmed as a united state , and many people had been shot anyway. Why expose the United American Constitutional State to the same danger?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

https://beta-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/parkland-students-unveil-sweeping-gun-control-proposal-and-hope-for-a-youth-voting-surge-in-2020/2019/08/20/145f4574-c36f-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

Politics

"Parkland students unveil sweeping gun-control proposal and hope for a youth voting surge in 2020"

By Jacqueline Alemany and Matt Viser 

August 21, 2019 at 6:30 AM EDT

"The student activists who crashed the political arena after the mass shooting last year at their high school in Parkland, Fla., are throwing their weight behind a new and ambitious gun-control program that they hope will set the tone for the debate following the most recent mass shootings and headed into the 2020 elections."

I support the March For Our Lives organization.

From Twitter:

"Let’s create a safer America. Text CHANGE to 954-954 to join the movement."

"To take on this crisis, we need to think big. To take on corrupt powers that be, we have to be strategic. To take on violence, we have to be pro-peace. Introducing: A Peace Plan for a Safer America. Created by survivors, so you don’t have to be one."

A Peace Plan for a Safer America

marchforourlives.com 

March For Our Lives

@AMarch4OurLives

·

10m

Replying to

@AMarch4OurLives

"Nearly two years ago, we created this organization out of crisis. We waited for solutions. But we’re not waiting anymore. Read our #PeacePlan - a no-holds-barred, comprehensive platform to drive real change."

It's sad to see children being manipulated the world's elites and use as political pawns to carry a message they don't understand.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

The Parkland Students, survived a mass shooters, murdering gun.

That makes some of those students, VETERANS, to some of the U.S. born gun violence crimes, now doesn't it?

Being that they are witnesses, to a criminals gun violence fire fight, against themselves and their fellow school students.

So your word's, in my opinion, are inapplicable to them.

"It's sad to see children being manipulated the world's elites and use as political pawns to carry a message they don't understand."

And it's deplorable to see the NRA, apparently manipulating the country, when it comes to the Second Amendment?

Or might that statement, be innacurate given the amount of "attention," that the participants on Twitter, have expressed themselves, in regards to the NRA, and their influences over others? 


@CYDdharta

This Twitter participants words, resonates with a lot of U.S. citizens.

@loisbeckett

"The overwhelming majority of Americans don't own guns. Dedicated gun rights activists are a minority within that minority. Pro-gun activists are deeply aware of this fact. Less than 10% of gun owners are NRA members, per best estimates. Less than 30% of Americans own a gun." 

TKDB

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns

"From the Center for Responsive Politics"

"Gun Rights vs Gun Control

• Campaign Contributions,
  1990-2018 
  Gun rights: $42.1 million 
  Gun control: $4.3 million

• Outside Spending, 2010-2018 
  Gun rights: $113.6 million 
  Gun control: $12.5 million

• Lobbying, 1998-2018 
  Gun rights: $149 million 
  Gun control: $21 million "

See spending on lobbying and contributions from gun control and gun rights groups to members of Congress, as well as current NRA data

"Gun violence is a fact of life in the United States and, in 2019, mass shootings continue to occur with frightening regularity.

Mass murders, such as those at schools in Parkland, Fla., and Santa Fe, Texas, at a newsroom in Maryland and at houses of worship in Poway, Calif., Pittsburgh, Pa., Sutherland Springs, Texas, and Charleston, S.C., shock the conscience and spur debate — but with little action from Congress.

In 2018, there was at least one mass shooting a month, more than 20 overall according to ABC News' definition of a mass shooting.

Already in 2019, there have been a number of mass shootings. In April 2019, a shooting at a synagogue in the town of Poway in Southern California killed one and injured three in what officials deem a hate crime.

The Poway synagogue shooting came exactly six months after a man spouting anti-Semitic slurs opened fire on worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in an attack that left 11 dead. It was described by the Anti-Defamation League as the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in American history.

The deadliest mass shooting in modern American history occurred in October 2017 at a Las Vegas music festival, resulting in the deaths of 58 concertgoers and injuring hundreds more.

Only 16 months before that, a gunman armed with a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle murdered 49 people and injured 58 at an Orlando nightclub in what was then the country's worst mass shooting.

The horrific attack in Orlando came less than six months after a man and a woman opened fire at a San Bernardino, Calif., social services center, killing 14 and injuring 22.

And with each new mass shooting — from Columbine to Sandy Hook; Fort Hood to Virginia Tech — the national debate over gun ownership renews. "

"Despite the outpouring of grief and sympathy that followed the San Bernardino incident on Dec. 2, 2015, the very next day the Senate rejected a bill to tighten background check requirements on would-be gun buyers — just as it did in 2013, shortly after a lone gunman killed six adults and 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

One small gun control measure undertaken by the Trump administration was the banning of bump stocks, a tool that allows semi-automatic rifles to fire as fast as automatics, after the Las Vegas shooting. The ban, which took effect in March, requires existing bump stocks to be turned in to the government or destroyed.

The issue of how to strike a balance between gun rights and public safety has been a political hot potato for years, and one that Congress has dealt with gingerly, if at all.

The political climate of 2019 would hardly seem ripe for action on the issue. Republicans generally oppose any type of gun control legislation — only four of 54 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the 2015 background check bill.

CHART: Gun rights vs. gun control lobbying, 1998-2018 "

"President Donald Trump has repeatedly pledged to protect Second Amendment rights and often warns gun owners that their Second Amendment rights are “under assault.” In an April speech to NRA members, Trump announced he will not ratify America’s participation in the international Arms Trade Treaty, which would provide some international oversight on arms sales.

In opposition to the Republicans, the newly Democratic-controlled House has made passing gun control legislation a priority. So far, the House passed two measures with some bipartisan support that strengthen and expand the background check process. The House also passed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, opposed by the NRA because of the bill’s measure that seeks to prevent domestic abusers from obtaining guns.

In June 2016, Democrats mounted a successful filibuster that forced Senate Republicans to vote on four gun control proposals   none of which passed.

"A .44 caliber political issue

The last major piece of gun control legislation to make it into law was the assault weapons ban, passed in 1994 as part of a larger crime-related bill approved by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton. But the ban, which applied to the manufacture of 19 specific models of semi-automatic firearms and other guns with similar features, expired in 2004, and repeated attempts to renew it failed."

(Pay close attention to this piece of information:

"84% of Americans

support expanding background checks to include private firearm sales and purchases at gun shows, including a majority of Republican respondents. (Source: Pew Research Center, June 2017)"

Some Democrats thought their support for the assault weapons ban cost them control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. Whether or not that's true, there's little question that the politics of gun ownership have swung to the right. Republicans largely oppose gun control, and Democrats are split, with some lawmakers cautious about going against the views of more conservative constituencies, especially in rural districts. "

"CHART: Top 20 recipients of funds from gun rights interests among members of Congress, 1989-2018*"

"Gun control versus gun rights will likely be a major issue of the 2020 presidential election. One Democratic candidate, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said gun control is the central issue he is running on. The necessity of more gun control legislation is essentially standard among all 21 Democratic candidates, several of whom own guns, currently running.

Still, despite highly publicized mass shootings, no gun control measures, with the exception of the bump stock ban, have made it into law.

That includes the so-called Manchin-Toomey amendment to require background checks in all commercial gun sales, including those at gun shows — the closest attempt in recent history to reform gun laws. The measure first came to a vote in April 2013, four months after the Newtown shooting. It failed, getting only 54 of the 60 votes it needed to overcome a filibuster.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that nearly all of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment had accepted significant campaign contributions from the political action committees of gun rights groups. There were exceptions to the rule, notably the measure's sponsors, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). But in general, the correlation was a close one.

No senators who were in office for the 2013 vote changed their position when the provision came up again after the San Bernardino killings in 2015. And the second time around, only 48 votes of support for expanding background checks could be found. Another bill put to a vote that day   sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — would have prohibited individuals on the federal government’s terrorist watchlist from buying guns. It was rejected as well.

The lack of movement on gun legislation runs counter to public opinion, which reveals a consistent desire for stricter laws. The Pew Research Center found in 2018that 89 percent of Americans, including a majority of Republican respondents, support preventing people with a history of mental illness from obtaining guns. A large majority, 67 percent, including a majority of Republicans, also support banning assault-style guns and high-capacity magazines.

Guns and money

There's no denying that much of the strength of the leading gun rights organization, the National Rifle Association (NRA), comes from its broad and passionate membership base and its mastery of grassroots politics.

But if lawmakers seem to tiptoe around gun issues, that could be in part because the NRA and other gun rights groups are loaded for bear with a seemingly limitless stash of cash ammunition.

Gun rights interests have given more than $43.8 million to candidates, parties and outside spending groups since 1989, with 90 percent of the funds contributed to candidates and parties going to Republicans. The NRA is consistently the top contributing organization among gun rights groups.

During the 2018 election cycle, the NRA further opened its coffers to make around $9.4 million in outside expenditures, a significant decrease from the $27 million spent during the 2014 midterm election cycle. It also marked a massive drop from the 2016 presidential election cycle when the NRA spent almost $54.4 million.

Gun control interests, by comparison, have generally been a blip on the radar screen. They’ve emerged as a greater political force in recent cycles, however.

They've given $9 million since 1989; 97 percent of their contributions to parties and candidates have gone to Democrats. Most of that, around $5.6 million, came in the 2018 cycle alone.

CHART: Top 20 recipients of funds from gun control interests among members of Congress, 1989-2018* "

"Most of the gun control movement’s political clout comes from two well-connected organizations. Giffords, founded by gun violence victim and former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband, now U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kelly, spent almost $6.6 million on independent expenditures in 2018. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety spent $5.1 million.

Independence USA PAC, a super PAC backed by Bloomberg, says it supports a variety of causes including stricter gun laws. It spent around a whopping $37.5 million on independent expenditures during the 2018 midterms. The money supported federal candidates who favored gun control and attacked those who didn’t — 21 of the 24 Democratic House candidates the super PAC supported won in 2018.

Gun rights groups are still powerful in the realm of lobbying. In 2018 the gun rights lobby spent almost $12.3 million making its case in Washington, the most since 2013 — the year of the Newtown school shooting. Gun control groups spent $2 million on lobbying, close to the $2.2 million dropped in 2013, also their high watermark year.

Through the first quarter in 2019, gun rights groups still dominate lobbying efforts — spending $2.5 million compared with $650,000 from gun control groups.

– Raymond Arke, Geoff West (May 2019)

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org "

The above information is very educational, and informative, for the entire country. 

Vaulk

@TKDB

The idea that surviving a mass shooting or being the victim of an active shooter situation MAKES YOU A VETERAN is not only one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard but is quite possibly the most insulting thing I've ever heard as a Veteran.  

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

The Parkland Students, survived a mass shooters, murdering gun.

That makes some of those students, VETERANS, to some of the U.S. born gun violence crimes, now doesn't it?

You need to go find your Mommy and Daddy and ask them politely to please teach you what a Veteran is and why it's disrespectful to talk loosely with the term.  You're very quickly shortening the number of people that will talk to you on this site TKDB, don't be surprised when everyone decides to ignore you because you're insolent and despicable.

John_C_87

So simply said laws on gun control are for safety as a public use?

The power to take private property for public use by a state, taking of physical property, or a portion thereof, as well as the taking of property by reducing its value. Public use, requires that the property taken be used to benefit the public rather than specific individuals. the amount of compensation awarded when property is seized or damaged through condemnation must be fair to the public as well as to the property owner. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/06/26/how-much-does-the-pentagon-spend-on-weapons-less-than-you-think/#672946ee2bfc

Vaulk

A great number of people have brought up the argument that the 2nd Amendment isn't necessary because the notion of a tyrannical government in the United States is absurd and would never happen.  I just so happen to stumble across this tidbit of information today on facebook and it turns out that there's at least one recent example of when a Government body became tyrannical in the United States and the citizens had to resort to firearms to overthrow it.



The full story can be read here.

The TLDR version is essentially that corrupt politicians and heads of law offices in Athens, Tennessee had a strangle-hold on election proceedings for almost a decade before WWII Veterans returned home and took a stand.  During the stand at the ballot, an African American Farmer was murdered by a Deputy Sheriff for trying to cast his vote for the opposition.  The Veterans responded by breaking down the National Guard armory doors, arming themselves and initiating a firefight with the entire Sheriff department until they surrendered.  

Now I don't condone this type of violence and I hope to God I'd never be put into a situation like this where I would have to choose.  But if that day ever comes...I refuse to be armed with umbrellas like people in Hong Kong.

TKDB

@Vaulk

"You need to go find your Mommy and Daddy and ask them politely to please teach you what a Veteran is and why it's disrespectful to talk loosely with the term.  You're very quickly shortening the number of people that will talk to you on this site TKDB, don't be surprised when everyone decides to ignore you because you're insolent and despicable."

Who are you trying to speak to with the above words? 

I don't need to go do anything Vaulk, my words are sound, and intact. 

"You're very quickly shortening the number of people that will talk to you on this site TKDB, don't be surprised when everyone decides to ignore you because you're insolent and despicable."

@Vaulk

Vaulk do you own this website?

Apparently, there is a pro gun movement, going on behind the scenes of this very forum?


Ignore me?

Just like the Mass shooters, who ignored the Rights, of those citizens, that they killed with their guns?

And the pro gun crowd overall, it's voice, is small in comparison to the rest of the country, that supports more gun control.


You're a pro gun individual, aren't you?

Are you maybe an NRA supporter as well?

"The idea that surviving a mass shooting or being the victim of an active shooter situation MAKES YOU A VETERAN is not only one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard but is quite possibly the most insulting thing I've ever heard as a Veteran."

I'm sorry if you disagree with calling them Civilian Veterans.

I'm a Veteran as well.

And being that those students were subjected to a one sided fire fight, from a mass shooters gun violence, and some of their friends/ school were killed around them, to me, that makes them Civilian Veterans, of the mass shooters gun violence plague, that has been plaguing the United States, because the Second Amendment, is a failure as it's written, and kids, students, senior citizens, people at church, people at a Wal-Mart, and people at a concert in Vegas, were all killed by various mass shooters gun violence, and they saw the blood shed, face to face, in person.

So yes, they are all Civilian Veterans of a Mass shooters one sided firefight.

And despite the NRA's efforts at downplaying further gun control efforts, and some of the pro gun crowd, defending the Second Amendment, as its currently written, the NRA, those pro gun supporters, and the pro gun extremists themselves, can't downplay those Mass shooters, gun violence crimes.

They are a part of this countries history now.

And I view those Mass shooter survivor victims, as Civilian Veterans. 

Doesn't War, change the lives of soldiers, in general?

Sure it does.

So when those Mass shooters, killed those citizens, they changed the lives, of those survivors, and the thing, happened to the families, who lost family members, when they were lost to the mass shooters, gun violence crimes. 

So now, these Civilian Veterans, now have in a sense, have their own Mass shooters, war stories, because those Mass shooters, waged a war of their own creations, against these kids, students, senior citizens, people at a church, people at a Wal-Mart, and people, at a concert in Vegas. 

I can see more March For Our Lives Rallies, happening across, the United States, for years to come, because these Civilian Veterans, and those families, who lost their loved ones, to a Mass shooters, one sided firefight, deserve the Right to have their voices heard.

Despite the blocks, at preventing more gun control laws.

And despite the opinions, or perceptions of some of the pro gun supporters, or the Far Right Pro Gun supporters, and the NRA?

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

And so why is that you think you like to make it a habit to twist other people's words around and to make arguments with? Why do you think you have this mindset? Have you considered seeing a quack for this behaviour of yours?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

"And so why is that you think you like to make it a habit to twist other people's words around and to make arguments with? Why do you think you have this mindset? Have you considered seeing a quack for this behaviour of yours?"

Are the above words supposed to carry some sort of meaning?

Your words, aren't worth fretting over.

Are you jealous of the attention, that the NRA, is getting on Twitter, or in the mainstream news? 

Seems like it? 

Why are you scared, to go on the News in the UK, and express your own pro gun rhetoric before a news camera?

Because, you say what you will on the comfort of the internet? 

At least the NRA, makes it point, publicly, to express itself, verses how you express yourself?

Why the disparity? 

Vaulk

I went ahead and muted @TKDB, interesting that I can still see that he's posting and referencing my name but whatever he's saying is invisible, I'd recommend this for anyone tired of hearing from him.

ZeusAres42

Vaulk said:

I went ahead and muted @TKDB, interesting that I can still see that he's posting and referencing my name but whatever he's saying is invisible, I'd recommend this for anyone tired of hearing from him.

I have muted him, but I am just playing around now. He has proven himself incapable of honest and civil as well as rational discourse. However, just playing his little game for the pure comedy and entertainment value. Will however, get back to the adults in due time.

TKDB

@Vaulk

From Veteran to Veteran, I feel sad, and sorry for you.

Not one single life lost to any unlawful Gun Violence in the United States is acceptable.

And, it's a very sickening fact, that some in the United States, are dragging their feet, on people getting killed by a Mass shooters one sided firefight, against any US citizen, is showing the mentality that some have adopted for their individually owned guns.

The NRA is wrong.

And those Civilian Veterans, deserve better, than how they get treated by some, because some people seem to value their individual guns, over the lives of those around them, that they could care less about?

The pro gun extremists mentality?

Hey, US citizens, purchase a GUN, to avoid being victimized by a Mass shooter, or a criminal, or an offender, with their illegally owned GUNS,  because, if you don't buy a gun, YOU'RE allowing yourself to become a victim.

Oh, and leave the Second Amendment alone, because it's precious, with it's 18th century wording, and works perfectly in the 21st century, with the grotesque amounts of gun violence that it happening in the United States, every day.

Police Officers, and civilians alike have been murdered, by gun violence for how many decades now? 

Please, use the NRA, to defend your pro gun ownership, and for the pro gun extremists to defend, their gun ownership, as well.

Because apparently, the NRA, some of the pro gun owners, and the pro gun extremists, are the gate keepers of the Second Amendment, as it's written.

And what a failure, of an Amendment it is. 

@ZeusAres42 ;

Have any comments to make? 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

So yes, they are all Civilian Veterans of a Mass shooters one sided firefight.

A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion.

Combat - To oppose in battle; fight against.

Victims of a War crime that occurs in a Civil War taking place even when the War is not related to the attack are not veterans, a victim, the people offer no opposition in battle as organized combat. Part of what may make these outage an international War crime is they do not targeting by attack a military instillation. Here again the abuse of legislation in law may be directing self-incrimination unsafely onto the public.

Civil War and the burden of lethal force also known as for example intalks Drug War, A female Civil War of Independence, and etc. Realistically the civilian victim of a War crime is not a Veteran as the role in Military service is preserved, protect and serve the United State American Constitution.

How is this done by the Civilian preservation of basic principle and legal precedent.

1, The buying of a gun and ammunition even if not to for use by them, as it is a liberty of choice offered by constitution a person can take on the equal responsibility of lethal force by basic principle.

2.It is privately taking on the burden of lethal force when owning both gun and ammunition; a citizen and gun are nothing more an independent Amory. No law states a gun owner must fire the weapon they own. The strong warning here is to not act as though there is by united state. That is call among many things tyranny. 

3. Address the criminal that has committed the shooting a fear of loss and the price it will take is no excuse to attack others. This is called a basic principle and often mistaken publicly for legal precedent.

4. The purchase price of a weapon of arm held in private armory is set by the cost the private holder has incurred by conditions place on them and the cost at which the pentagon pay to obtain, maintain and use that weapon can be added to.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/3825/an-exploration-of-the-second-amendment/p3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

There is not resistance by United State American Constitution to stop or not allow any group of people rich or poor from buying the guns from privately held armory in America. There is no price as public bid set on the table. No offer. It looks by appearance to be like a use of Ex post facto law…..Again.

John_C_87

And what a failure, of an Amendment it is.

The 2nd Amendment is a legal precedent held by a united state found in law by constitution. It doesn't fail it points out a united state a group of crimes make in the trial process, in the case of 2nd Amendment of American Constitution the state identified by union is lethal force. WE can agree though it must fail in some way as the basic principle is to complex to be understood openly, at least by some, maybe by many.