14 students killed, 1 teacher dead in elementary school shooting

Like I said Macdonald further clarified Heller, bruen is going to invalidate New York’s permit scheme, and bonta is going to invalidate magazine bans. Because this nonsensical intermediate scrutiny liberal courts apply to a constitutional rights is over. All constitutional rights will be applied via strict scrutiny for the next 100 years. IE gun control is dead

 

You are welcome to link to any specific comments you’d like to discuss. Did he say something about the French Resistance?

 

Well hundreds of thousands of people will be dead.
But I guess you dont care.
I'd well rather be here walking in freedom than there cowering in fear.
What à shame. A beautiful country shooting itself up with no apology.
Sigh.

 

So you have nothing to say about my link except something totally disconnected?
Bizarre.

 

I was hoping you could post a link, but I’ll go look around and see what links you have posted previously and take a guess at what you want me to comment on.

How is what I posted disconnect from your posts on militia and weapons/tactics? I have not responded to any post of yours containing a link. If you don’t want me to respond to your posts on weapons/militia/tactics I suggest you limit that content to the private message section of the forum.

It’s bizarre to post paragraphs of unsubstantiated opinions of weapons/tactics/militia on a public forum and expect nobody to comment.

 

I quoted Scalis's text via the quoted link to à legal website.
Come on. You can do better that this.
So far you have nothing to seriously challenge what I have posted other than your incorrect assertion than " it is my right".
It reminded me of some rather shallow students who used to defy authority by trying on the plea ,
" IT'S MY RIGHT"
With no honest facts to support it. More about what you want rather than what is.

 

I’ve read several pages and not found your link. I’ll keep looking if you are unwilling to post it or a PF post #.

I can go better than what? Ask you for directions to what YOU want me to comment on? My comments so far directly addressed your posts. Again, if you ONLY want your link addressed refrain from posting other content on an open forum.

 

I have encountered two weeks of solid opinion unsubstantiated by links. I quoted à link and posted where to find it.
Go away until you have something useful to say.

 

Is this what you are referring to?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073502951/

You have not encountered two weeks of MY opinion unsubstantiated by links.

 

Sigh

 

So you're telling me all the Ukranians are dead and weapons did nothing to help. Odd, I'm pretty sure there are a few remaining and I'll wager that, like many Americans, they'd rather be dead than enslaved. I'm sorry that giving into oppression comes so easily for you.

Your failure to grasp the simile here is just an extension of your failure to blame the guilty party in ALL shooting events. Blaming the gun keeps you from blaming the criminals for their actions, I'm certain they're glad you have their back. Citizen > subject.

 

You are incorrect. We have the organized militia(AKA National guard) and the unorganized militia made up of millions of people. Again, read our laws and learn. You are talking to tons of people who, by law, are a part of the unorganized militia.

Just stop. You don’t get it and you don’t want to get it. Bye.

 

The first thing the nazi's did was disarm the populace.
We're well aware of the dangers of our own government, hence why we won't surrender our arms O Grand Emperor

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Again: Current federal law has been quoted to you multiple times. Your refusal to accept it has no legal effect.

O are you under the impression I think our police are 'the good guys' or something?
lol.



I call that last one "water break"
They're ****ing useless no matter that we train and equip them well.
Hence why I refuse to be disarmed.
Ad homs? I'm just pointing out that your beliefs seem to be partially cultural in that your people (collaborators) prefer to just roll over and let it happen.

 

Sigh indeed.

For those interested, here is a link to what Pixie is apparently referring to.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

And here is the portion of Pixie’s post preceding her selective quotation from that link.

Now, the selected quote (from the source she refused to link to) Pixie uses to supposedly substantiate the claim a militia is no longer “necessary “ and that ownership of firearms is excluded predicated on need for militia.

The quoted text from Scalia provided by Pixie does not address the question of whether firearm ownership is predicated on need for militia or not. But the source document she won’t link to does! Here is one example:

So we see the court majority opinion in this case as well as precedent setting case of Cruikshank is that the right to keep and bear arms is not connected to the Constitution in any way—therefore it can not be connected to militias described by subsequent constitutional laws and acts (like the Militia Acts).

Thus the majority court held:

We can clearly see that the court majority decision is in direct opposition to this unsubstantiated claim by Pixie.

I will let the reader come to their own conclusion regarding whether Pixie is ignorant of the document she quoted from or is intentionally providing disinformation. Either way, the document she selectively quotes from without providing a link does not support her position as she intimated.

Now, if Pixie can supply some documentation that militias are no longer necessary we can continue in that vein. If it’s just her unsubstantiated opinion like the above example we won’t bother.

Documentation can be any act or law annulling or superseding the 1903 Dick Act provision for state controlled defense forces and unorganized militia from which to draw for defense of the state. It can also be a constitutional amendment removing or neutering the 2A provisions. Or it could even be the raw product of a convention of states declaring their wish to dissolve the union of states and form a non-federated central government uninhibited by Posse Comitatus, Insurrection Act, and all Constitutional Amendments pertaining to state’s rights.

 

Don’t let Democrats tell you that the end goal isn’t about taking all the guns. One of their main faces, Michael Moore, called for a complete abolishment of the second amendment today.

https://deadline.com/2022/05/michael-moore-repeal-second-amendment-1235033193/amp/

The irony of this? We all know damn well this fat slob is surrounded by armed security every time he manages to waddle out of one of his mansions.

 

Please quote me saying “it’s my right”.

Everything I’ve posted TO YOU (preceding the post on the majority opinion on Heller) is historical WW2 era FACT. If you disagree on what I’ve posted about the French Resistance, Vichy Government, the Maginot Line, German war fighting capabilities in the 1930’s and 40’s, etc. go ahead and point out my errors. We know you won’t because all you have is thinly veiled ad hominem and false accusations of what I’ve posted. The post on Heller is more recent historical FACT that conflicts with your unsubstantiated opinions.

I wish I could say you can do better, but your history in this thread shows you can’t. I’m sure thankful I had the opportunity to work my way through a quality education. Thanks for reminding me what I avoided by working hard and paying for quality instruction.

After misrepresenting the Scalia document you have no standing to invoke the term “honest facts”.

 

@Pixie (and those interested in truth).

I have found the source of your quote in post #3405 of this thread. Here it is quoted with PF quote function.

Note the bolded text. Pixie has plagiarized the non bolded text from Giffords Law Center (an anti gun organization) and attributed it to Heller (bolded text) who was the man who sued DC which ultimately resulted in the Scalia majority opinion at the heart of this debate. As far as I can tell there is no organization or publication “Heller Law Center”.

Here is the link to the plagiarized text from Giffords.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/second-amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/

No wonder Pixie does not want to supply links! I’m thankful for this opportunity to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of many parroting the current anti firearm narrative. They have no understanding of the foundational documents and court cases and they are blatantly dishonest. They are heavy on appeal to emotion and logical fallacy, but very light on facts and critical thought.

 

You missed the point.
History is irrelevant. Évents happened in a different social, cultural and circumstantial time. They are not à confirmed model of what will happen, which you think you should be on your guard against. The whole idea is ridiculous.
Therefore your only justification for having guns is that it is your right.
Which is not a requirement.
No one chose or elected gun owners to be the peoples' protectorate. You are not à well ordered militia. You are à loose collection of people who make up reasons to have guns.
And you dont care about the results.
You refuse to look for a solution because you prefer to hang onto your guns in the same way as children keep the training wheel on their bikes. I suspect it is something to do with your idea of masculinity. A shame.
The rest of the civilised world doesn't have constant mass shootings and nearly half à million gun related incidents à year. That you dont find that appalling is à big part of not wanting to find à solution.
I am seriously getting bored with discussing your cultural disease. I will answer your previous post when I get to my laptop where search and références are easier.
You carry on creating à self generating need for killing children. Since you dont care, there is nothing to be done with the empathetically vacant.

 

The quote I copied word for word (as you note I did mention the site. I usually use a phone to write to this site and copying sources is messy. )were the words not of the Gifford site but of Justice Scalia. I dont care what political leanings the site has. He said the words. They are in quotes on that site and are not the words of the site itself. I did not misrepresenting anything.nor did I attributed anything to Heller. I never mentioned the name. I copied and quoted the words spoken by Scalia. That cannot be à mistepresentation. And so far you have not denied he said them but have merely sifted back into other cases which may or may not be about what he said. Nice try at distraction.
I would be astonished if any person experienced in law would say "here you go guys, anyone can have a gun of any kind and use it anywhere with impunity". The idea is monstrous. It creates something out of à Tarantino film.
What you should be doing is demanding à police and security force that makes your unregulated ownership unnecessary. Like every other civilised country.

 

Unsubstantiated opinion followed by appeal to stone fallacy.

Quote me saying my only justification for having firearms is it’s my right. Go ahead Pixie. Quote me.

Yes, in the United States, as shown by the Scalia majority SC decision, the framers of the Bill of Rights, crafters of every subsequent Militia Act, and every state level statesman involved in ratification of the Constitution did indeed choose firearm owners to be the people’s protectorate. Your unsubstantiated opinion is of no concern in light of these facts.

False accusation with no documentation. And ad hominem fallacy.

I have offered half a dozen or more solutions to this problem in the last couple weeks. Solutions based on predictors and causes of violence identified through the scientific method and reported on in peer reviewed journals.

How is using science to address a problem in society appalling? Be VERY specific in your answer.

I have a cultural disease? Because I’ve pointed out your argument is not fact based and you intentionally spread disinformation?

Please quote me saying I don’t care. I have presented many solutions based on causes of ALL violence.

Clean up your act. You give educators a bad name. Do your research BEFORE you make false claims followed by fallacy.

 

1. Are you singular always so selfish? YOU was used invthe plural général. Stop making this personal.
2. My opinion, while the driver of my argument, has nothing to do with the FACT that what I quoted was uttered by Justice Scalia with référence to the SC decision 2008.
You can waffle and play personal all you want. The FACT is that he said it.
2. By science I assume you mean psychology.By the time you find out why people break the law or kill each other and devise treatment tailored to each patient BEFORE they commit their crimes, you will have classroom heaving with dead children.
For the fourth time I said BETTER POLICING is the solution worth trying.
4. I suggest you stop hiding behind unnecessary undergrowth including insults, personalisations and commands. So far you have provided zéro reasons to justify generally potential carnage and no amount of telling me "it is the law" amounts to justifying the existential results of that law.

 

You attributed a direct quote from Giffords website to an entity (Heller Law Center) that does not even exist. I have provided a link to Giffords showing the direct quote came from that site. There is no attribution of the quote to Heller Law Center in Giffords web site.

You made it up. Your quotation IS FROM GIFFORDS, and you attributed it to a non existent entity. And you claim to be an educator.

Why would I deny he said it? I don’t make false statements as you have done. I simply pointed out the quote you provided from Scalia is irrelevant to the points you posted it to support. I provided quotes from the same document showing the majority of the SC concluded the opposite of your unsubstantiated claim. And instead of admitting your error or intentional disinformation, you provided us with more fallacy.

So would I. But that’s still irrelevant to the content of the post of yours I quoted and responded to with links and pull quotes and intellectual argument.

No. Do you want me to tell you what you should do? This is a sovereign nation with a government of, by and for the people.

You and every “free” or somewhat “free” (or civilized as you say) nation on earth owes their freedom to the ideals set forth in the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution. You don’t have to like it, but it’s historical fact. The French Revolution was a nice try but couldn’t compete with other European powers because it was itself morally bankrupt. France exists today because of the framework the founders of the US put in place. Your ignorance of history doesn’t change that.

You also owe your “freedom” in part to the French Resistance that you throw shade on with every post you make. To all the survivors and descendants of survivors of that movement you have MY gratitude and respect even if you don’t get it from Pixie. Thank you for coalescing from an unorganized “mob” as Pixie calls you into a force that shaped the history of the world for the better and showing that the mind and body are more powerful weapons than any hardware fielded by any despotic government. Well done.

 

I quoted from the Gifford Law Web page. What I quoted was directly attributed to Justice Scalia and indicated à direct quote by using quotation marks.
I NEVER ATTRIBUTED IT TO HELLER
YOU INTRODUCED THAT ELEMENT.
I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF HELLER.

and frankly it is nonsense. Scalia said it. The rest is fluff designed to distract.
I have also never attributed my freedom to the French Revolution. In fact à few years after the "end" there speang up what we would now call Communist...the Paris Commune. It had little to do with liberty or rights.
The principles invested in both constitutions came from philosophers such as Locke, Kant, Rousseau and Voltaire, thinkers of the EUROPEAN Enlightenment which took flower at the beginning of the 18th century and gave impétus to overturning à "ruling class" and gave substance tova new form of government. Democracy.
Let's not discuss your accusations about my education. Do your own research.
If you can prove that Scalia didn't say what I quoted then I suggest you take it up with the website.
If you can't, it stands, for all your verbage.

 

Me stop making it personal? I’m responding in kind to your FALSE accusations I don’t care and don’t offer solutions. If you can’t run with the big dogs you best stay under the porch.

Your quote from Scalia was irrelevant to your argument. Period. Scalia disagreed 100% with your argument.

No not psychology. I’m a biologist. I present solutions that prevent propensity to violence—all violence, not just mass shootings. Solutions based on the problems of Obesity, childhood antibiotic use, and sugar consumption that are all associated with increased propensity to violence. I would much rather prevent people from ever wishing to do violence but folks like you are never interested in peer reviewed science or prevention.

I’m not here to justify anything. I’m here to point out you have provided disinformation repeatedly and your argument is based on numerous fallacies.

I’m someone who uses firearms numerous times a month so that you don’t have to. I’m someone who lives where law enforcement does a fine job. They work with citizens here, going so far as requesting me to use firearms to perform their duties when they can not be present. I’ve met law enforcement officers I wouldn’t extinguish if they were on fire, but I don’t stereotype others based on individual actions. Your generalization that all law enforcement in the US is ineffective or sub par is patently false. And of course unsubstantiated in any way, it’s your uninformed opinion.

I use firearms so you don’t have to. You should be justifying your act of hiring your killing done on your behalf by people like me. I don’t need to justify anything to you. If you are uninterested in addressing the causes of violence this will never be fixed.