Nashville school shooting: Woman ‘armed with assault-style rifles’ kills six

Brawler said:
Not sure if posted already but the body cams from the officers is online.
Those officers are absolute heroes. They arrive, grab their rifles and go in the school with an active shooter with no fear, clear room by room in a systematic way and run towards gunfire before putting it down. They even get bonus points for headshots.
Click to expand...
How it should be done.

Not like those cowards at Uvalde (who were vociferously defended on MyBB).
 
neoprema said:
Your reasoning was going so well if i read it in reverse. Then it ends with the dumb part: "Guns don't kill people" - they do. Because a deranged person with a pen, is less dangerous than a deranged person with a semi-automatic. Fact. Get rid of the guns :)
Click to expand...
You see, it wasn’t Alec Baldwin who aimed the gun and pulled the trigger, it was the gun that did it. Poor Alec Baldwin is innocent of the crime. The gun should get the murder conviction.

You would make a great lawyer. You should contact Alec Baldwin immediately and present this new theory of legal defence.

Here is the fact. If you want to get rid of the guns in the US, you need a 2/3 majority in both houses to agree with you. Which simply isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
 
FsUJwHqWwAEroP9
 
buka001 said:
How it should be done.

Not like those cowards at Uvalde (who were vociferously defended on MyBB).
Click to expand...
The problem is that the courts have made it very clear that the police have no duty to protect people’s lives.
That is something that probably could be addressed via legislation about the expected duty of police.

A private security guard who has a contract to protect someone’s life has more of a legal obligation than police.
 
konfab said:
The problem is that the courts have made it very clear that the police have no duty to protect people’s lives.
That is something that probably could be addressed via legislation about the expected duty of police.

A private security guard who has a contract to protect someone’s life has more of a legal obligation than police.
Click to expand...
Low effort troll post.

Please let me know when these policeman get indicted and are charged for murder.

Can you give me a forecasted timeline of when this will happen? Days, weeks or months?
 
konfab said:
You don’t even want to define what a woman is fam.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “

Why would the line refer to “the people” if they were not referring to everyone.
Click to expand...
Okay, lemme be serious for a moment... Here's the 2A, can we agree on that?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
Yes?

Good.

What y'all choose to ignore is the preamble, you know, the 'well regulated militia' bit, and you do it deliberately. When you're forced to address that awkward bit, you insist it means anyone with a gun, and y'all invoke tyrannical government.

But where is tyranny mentioned in the 2A?

Show me.

Then, let's look at the well regulate militia part of the constitution, shall we?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5
Click to expand...

So, it's Congress, and Congress alone, that has the power to call forth the militia.

Congress.

Not Billy Bob Gunnut.

Congress.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .

The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them under the Militia Clauses,1 such that the power may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress.2 At the same time, the Court acknowledged [t]he power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution remained with the states.3However, this power, the Court continued, is nevertheless subordinate to the paramount law of the General Government.4

Under the National Defense Act of 1916,5 the militia, which had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the federal government. The act divided militia of the United States—defined to include all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States between the ages of eighteen and forty-five—into several classes of organized militias, including the National Guard. Among its measures, the act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for three years in service and three years in reserve, and limited the appointment of officers to those who shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe.6 The act also authorized the President in certain emergencies to draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve, who thereupon should stand discharged from the militia.7

The Militia Clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army. The Supreme Court has approved the system of dual enlistment, under which persons enlisted in state militia (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, and, when called to active duty in the federal service, are relieved of their status in the state militia.8 Consequently, the restrictions in the first militia clause that limit the militia to be called forth for three specified purposes do not apply to the federalized National Guard.9 Nor is there a constitutional requirement that state governors hold a veto power over federal duty training conducted outside the United States or that a national emergency be declared before such training may take place.10
Click to expand...

And it's Congress that has the power to arm the militia it's called forth.

Again, Congress.

Like Burger said in '91, a fraud perpetrated on the American public.

Also...

Your 'shall not be infringed' has, in fact, been infringed previously. Here you go:

en.wikipedia.org

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The courts upheld every challenge.

Every one.

'Shall not be infringed"

Jesus.
 
Temujin said:
"another act of violence - misgendering."
"dishonors the memory of the victims"
They actually see her as a victim in this.... thats the only way this kind of talk can make sense.
They can take a long walk off a short pier and **** right off.
Click to expand...

It's a fckign parody site or run by a mentally disabled person

1680075973808.png
 
greg0205 said:
Okay, lemme be serious for a moment... Here's the 2A, can we agree on that?


Yes?

Good.

What y'all choose to ignore is the preamble, you know, the 'well regulated militia' bit, and you do it deliberately. When you're forced to address that awkward bit, you insist it means anyone with a gun, and y'all invoke tyrannical government.

But where is tyranny mentioned in the 2A?

Show me.

Then, let's look at the well regulate militia part of the constitution, shall we?



So, it's Congress, and Congress alone, that has the power to call forth the militia.

Congress.

Not Billy Bob Gunnut.

Congress.



And it's Congress that has the power to arm the militia it's called forth.

Again, Congress.

Like Burger said in '91, a fraud perpetrated on the American public.

Also...

Your 'shall not be infringed' has, in fact, been infringed previously. Here you go:

en.wikipedia.org

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The courts upheld every challenge.

Every one.

'Shall not be infringed"

Jesus.
Click to expand...
Clueless post exposed
 
greg0205 said:
Cling to your precious illusions, Kieps. Hold them close.
Click to expand...
It's you that have illusion Greggy. I at least have a proper grasp of the meaning of words in the context of what they were written.

You fail to consider the era in which the constitution was drafted, yet you for some reason believe they would write it from the point of view of centralised authority o_O
Remind the class what happened just a few years prior to the writing of these documents if you would..

"Shall not be infringed"
iu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X