High School Shooting In Florida

[BotanyBoy]

Or enforce it. All of it. If you're not in a well-regulated militia in specific situations, you don't carry firearms in public. Period. Enact severe penalties for violation. Keep all the guns you want... in private. Just like driving illegal junkers on private property, no problem. But in public, be regulated, or regret it.

That is not what 2A says....you need to learn how to read.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Uh, no you didn't. Until you reached your majority any "rights" you think you possessed were only privileges granted by your parents. Children do not have the full packet of Constitutional Rights. Which is how and why your parents could punish you, send you to your room, limit your free time and who you associated with, and so on.



Now you're just making shit up. The gun shop owner MUST release the firearm UNLESS there is a denial from the Form 4473 and/or a "hold" is placed on the sale by the BATFE. Absent that, there is no "illegal" in the sale. AFAIK, there are no claims that such happened in the Fla case.

The Supreme Court said kids have free speech but there are some limits that adults don't have. Schools have some power to suppress it but it's not total by any means.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

That is not what 2A says....you need to learn how to read.

He's stuck on that militia thing. Just repeats it over and over but is clueless.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

They have them, what I think about it is irrelevant.




There has never been a need for a case.

And there is no need to cite something that happens in classrooms and schools across the country most days of the year.

If you really need a citation about the legal rights of children vs adults a simple google search will help you understand that kids along with some other special cases don't get a whole lot in the way of legal rights. The're effectively their parents/legal guardian/the states bitch.

Tinker vs Des Moines but it sides with the student.
Was one not long about about bong hits for Jesus, too.

 

[bellisarius]

I saw that someone else had posted that she made bipartisan sense when tlking about the current gun climate.

WHY ARE WE LETTING THE NRA BUY POLITICIANS AND WHY ARE THE ADULTS NOT DOING MORE.

I cannot blame or argue with her.

The NRA doesn't "buy" politicians. BIG myth, but it plays well on the "vote for me" circuit in some areas.The identification of the NRA as the "bogey man" is right out the Sal Alinsky playbook.

To the point, you can't make the NRA go away. And even if you could another organization would rise to take it's place. They are already out there vying for membership dollars.

Emma certainly made an emotional appeal, but emotions are the lack of reason. Throw in some mis-statement of facts along with it. She did make some points though. About the family he was living with, the neighbors, the school itself, the local police, the FBI, and the courts.

 

[Rotadom]

She did make some points though. About the family he was living with, the neighbors, the school itself, the local police, the FBI, and the courts.

but not how easy it was for a mentally ill kid to legally buy a gun man you guys will just not face the facts

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Supreme Court said kids have free speech but there are some limits that adults don't have. Schools have some power to suppress it but it's not total by any means.

Tinker vs Des Moines but it sides with the student.
Was one not long about about bong hits for Jesus, too.

I'm not saying it's total, but it's not the full protection either....you don't get that till you're 18 or legally emancipated autonomous adult children which are pretty rare and usually 17 going on 18 anyhow.


Idk about bong hits for Jesus...but considering what a radical hippie he was for his time I'm guessing he was cool maaaan.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

I'm not saying it's total, but it's not the full protection either....you don't get that till you're 18 or legally emancipated autonomous adult children which are pretty rare and usually 17 going on 18 anyhow.


Idk about bong hits for Jesus...but considering what a radical hippie he was for his time I'm guessing he was cool maaaan.

I don't remember the details but it's some kid who stood across from the school with a sign that said bong hits for Jesus. I don't recall what his point was. easy enough to google I suppose. If I remember right the school got bent out of shape and it ended up in court. Supreme court I think but could be wrong about that.

 

[BobBalouski]

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

It simply cannot be more literally clear than that. There is no honest way anyone can possibly construe it to mean anything else but what it succinctly and EXACTLY COMMANDS.

That COMMAND - until amended - is the indisputable Law of the Land, no matter whether government agrees or not.

"speech" as the framers COMMANDED it, is nothing but words, the inalienable product of the mind of man. Saying whatever you wish, writing whatever you wish...

...it is NOT any type of actionable translation, ie, it is not physically burning a flag or materially politically giving $$: speech is nothing but words.

The Constitution COMMANDS government that there can be no law in America obstructing the natural right of man to speak his mind, or write out his thoughts - PERIOD.

 

[bellisarius]

but not how easy it was for a mentally ill kid to legally buy a gun man you guys will just not face the facts

Let's get to the point. He did not buy that gun legally. He lied on the 4473 background check form. What's worse is that the local police, with numerous calls regarding his activity, did not enter the appropriate information into the data base and the FBI, after a credible tip, did not follow up.

Numerous laws and procedures were violated in this case and you, among others, are telling me that more law will solve the problem.

If I were to become demented, and determined, to shoot you or anyone else, waving the appropriate statutes in my face and telling me I'm violating the law isn't going to stop me. Laws very rarely stop anyone from doing what the are determined to do, they merely prescribe the punishment after the fact.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't remember the details but it's some kid who stood across from the school with a sign that said bong hits for Jesus. I don't recall what his point was. easy enough to google I suppose. If I remember right the school got bent out of shape and it ended up in court. Supreme court I think but could be wrong about that.

Must be thinking of something else.

I just read the wiki on Tinker v. Des Moins ISD and Tinker was protesting the Vee-IT-nam war and they didnt' like that.

Long story short he could peacefully protest at school but had to do it on his own time, like after school outside.

When it came class time and school functions he still had to STFU and behave or get skull fucked by the state.

 

[silver gurl]

The second amendment was in 1791. Society has changed. The laws needs to follow to keep up with the society we now live in. But a majority of you don’t get it .

 

[coachdb18]

It simply cannot be more literally clear than that. There is no honest way anyone can possibly construe it to mean anything else but what it succinctly and EXACTLY COMMANDS.

That COMMAND - until amended - is the indisputable Law of the Land, no matter whether government agrees or not.

"speech" as the framers COMMANDED it, is nothing but words, the inalienable product of the mind of man. Saying whatever you wish, writing whatever you wish...

...it is NOT any type of actionable translation, ie, it is not physically burning a flag or materially politically giving $$: speech is nothing but words.

The Constitution COMMANDS government that there can be no law in America obstructing the natural right of man to speak his mind, or write out his thoughts - PERIOD.

You say 'until amended', but that's a bit of a mistake, since in reality the government never 'dispensed' these rights in the first place (not theirs to give), but these are actually nothing more than promises made at the time of the formation of the country that the new government recognized these as basic and innate rights, and would never interfere with their free expression. To 'amend' them would simply be the government backing out of that promise, but the right would still exist. It was all argued ad nauseum at the Constitutional conventions, and in the Federalist papers.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Must be thinking of something else.

I just read the wiki on Tinker v. Des Moins ISD and Tinker was protesting the Vee-IT-nam war and they didnt' like that.

Long story short he could peacefully protest at school but had to do it on his own time, like after school outside, when it came class time and school functions he still had to STFU and behave or get skull fucked by the state.

2 different cases. I didn't clarify that.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

The second amendment was in 1791. Society has changed. The laws needs to follow to keep up with the society we now live in. But a majority of you don’t get it .

So you want to do what the minority wants? And you think that's American?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The second amendment was in 1791. Society has changed. The laws needs to follow to keep up with the society we now live in. But a majority of you don’t get it .

Then explain it.

What has changed that makes 2A somehow not relevant?

2 different cases. I didn't clarify that.

Ahh I see.

 

[silver gurl]

So you want to do what the minority wants? And you think that's American?

How do you know it is the minority. It is only the minority in this thread.

 

[BobBalouski]

Heard his friend's father (sitting alongside his wife/friend's mother) say a few words this eve (the family Cruz had been staying with):

- said that they knew of 1 social media acct Cruz had, but none others; said his son, Cruz's pal, didn't even know he had any others.

- said they've been hearing/reading all this terrible mentally ill stuff about Cruz, but had never once experienced him acting out that behavior in their home or around them.

- said he was most struck about images and postings about cruelty to animals because they have animals and he's never seen Cruz be anything but loving to them.

Really hard to understand how this family could possibly have no idea about what everyone else seems to know all about.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

How do you know it is the minority. It is only the minority in this thread.

You think the majority want to get rid of the 2nd? And not just any majority.Three fourths of the states. To repeal one of the Bill of Rights. You can't possibly believe that's ever going to happen.

 

[coachdb18]

You think the majority want to get rid of the 2nd? And not just any majority.Three fourths of the states. To repeal one of the Bill of Rights. You can't possibly believe that's ever going to happen.

Once again I say, the Bill of Rights is different from the other amendments, in that they don't ESTABLISH any rights, they only RECOGNIZE THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS, and promise that the government will recognize and will never interfere or attempt to infringe on these pre-existing rights. Repealing a promise to not impede a pre-existing right would in no way remove that right, it would simply be the big brother government welching on its promises, made at the time of our founding, not to try.

 

[BobBalouski]

The second amendment was in 1791. Society has changed. The laws needs to follow to keep up with the society we now live in. But a majority of you don’t get it .

I get that the ONLY LEGAL WAY "The second amendment" can be altered in the ways you wish is for a proposed Amendment to the Constitution be ratified by at least 38 States to do just that.

You got a socialist/progressive problem with that, too?

 

[bellisarius]

You think the majority want to get rid of the 2nd? And not just any majority.Three fourths of the states. To repeal one of the Bill of Rights. You can't possibly believe that's ever going to happen.

Forget about the states, you can't even get a 'repeal' bill through either house of congress.

 

[BotanyBoy]

How do you know it is the minority. It is only the minority in this thread.

Because this is the US and you only need look at our gun laws.

The USA is overwhelmingly pro 2A.




You going to explain what has changed since 1791 that makes 2A somehow not relevant today?

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Forget about the states, you can't even get a 'repeal' bill through either house of congress.

Just isn't gonna happen. Not ever.

 

[silver gurl]

You think the majority want to get rid of the 2nd? And not just any majority.Three fourths of the states. To repeal one of the Bill of Rights. You can't possibly believe that's ever going to happen.

Nope it will never happen. It will just keep happening again and again. Politicians don’t give a shit. People want what they want.