New Zealand: "Our gun laws will change." Why them and not us?

[WuWei]

@westaussie

But you are most assuredly not immune.

Nor in our case, helpless.

[Samson_Corwell]

@TheRedComet

We (as a whole)[…]tend to fall apart the second we are challenged.

I become uppity and tell those who challenge me that I will do whatever I can to crush them in political combat.

[mobulis]

@WuWei

@westaussie

But you are most assuredly not immune.

Nor in our case, helpless.

Got robbed at shotgun point remember, had no gun and yet still alive.

[WuWei]

@mobulis

@WuWei

@westaussie

But you are most assuredly not immune.

Nor in our case, helpless.

Got robbed at shotgun point remember, had no gun and yet still alive.

That’s the claim.

Not by any choice you made.

[TheRedComet]

So he had mercy on you is basically what you’re saying?

[Samm]

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

Not without amending the Constitution. Get 'er done, buddy and quiturbitchin.

Well regulated, its right there in black and white.

Yep, a well regulated militia. That’s why the government is prohibited from infringing on our individual right to keep and bear arms. It’s right there in black and white.

Your wrong.

Elaborate.

[Samm]

@mobulis

@Samm

@TheRedComet

That doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Actually, he knows exactly what it means. He has been informed innumerable times.

Nope I’ve been informed of YOUR interpretation.

There is no interpretation necessary. The 2nd is written in simple language. No person who has even basc knowledge of the English language could honestly mistake the words “well regulated” to apply to the people, rather than to the Militia. You are being deliberately obtuse and everyone including you knows it.

[mobulis]

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@TheRedComet

That doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Actually, he knows exactly what it means. He has been informed innumerable times.

Nope I’ve been informed of YOUR interpretation.

There is no interpretation necessary. The 2nd is written in simple language. No person who has even basc knowledge of the English language could honestly mistake the words “well regulated” to apply to the people, rather than to the Militia. You are being deliberately obtuse and everyone including you knows it.

If no interpretation was necessary there would be no debate, but there is.

[markdido]

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@TheRedComet

That doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Actually, he knows exactly what it means. He has been informed innumerable times.

Nope I’ve been informed of YOUR interpretation.

There is no interpretation necessary. The 2nd is written in simple language. No person who has even basc knowledge of the English language could honestly mistake the words “well regulated” to apply to the people, rather than to the Militia. You are being deliberately obtuse and everyone including you knows it.

If no interpretation was necessary there would be no debate, but there is.

Only morons need to interpret the words “shall not be infringed”

[Samm]

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@TheRedComet

That doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Actually, he knows exactly what it means. He has been informed innumerable times.

Nope I’ve been informed of YOUR interpretation.

There is no interpretation necessary. The 2nd is written in simple language. No person who has even basc knowledge of the English language could honestly mistake the words “well regulated” to apply to the people, rather than to the Militia. You are being deliberately obtuse and everyone including you knows it.

If no interpretation was necessary there would be no debate, but there is.

If you insist having an interpretation, look no further than the SCOTUS. In the Heller descision, they stated unequivocally that the right to keep and bear arms was individual right irrespective of the collective of the well regulated Militia. Therefore, the words “well regulated” do NOT apply to the people. Q.E.D.

In other words, it has been interpreted by the supreme authority on the matter. It is ridiculous to pretend that it requires any more debate. Ignorance is forgivable; deliberate ignorance is not.

[westaussie]

Are you calling the judges on the Supreme Court morons as it is their responsibility to make rulings based on the USA constitution?

[markdido]

Not all the SCOTUS judges, just the stupid liberal ones.

[westaussie]

Here is a thought remove the politicisation of the Supreme Court of the USA.

This post will be post number 2,153. Of those 2,153 how mny posts have recognised that there is a problem to be resolved? Until there is a recognition of the problem, nothing will change. It will be the accepted norm that in passing the media will report briefly that there has been yet again another incident where a number of people killed at a school, college, cinema, theatre, church etc.

[Samm]

@westaussie

Here is a thought remove the politicisation of the Supreme Court of the USA.

That makes no sense at all. What are you going to do? Wave a magic wand and say some mystical words?

That said, the ONLY politics in the Supreme Court is by those Justices who do not take their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously, and instead allow themselves to be swayed by politics. And if certain people believe that the Constitution is standing in the way of enacting the laws they want, on gun control or anything else, there is a precisely laid out process for them to change the Constitution to allow those laws. Advocating violation of the Constitution is not an acceptable way to make change in law that is currently prohibited by the Constitution.

[Samm]

@westaussie

This post will be post number 2,153. Of those 2,153 how mny posts have recognised that there is a problem to be resolved? Until there is a recognition of the problem, nothing will change. It will be the accepted norm that in passing the media will report briefly that there has been yet again another incident where a number of people killed at a school, college, cinema, theatre, church etc.

Are you kidding? We can’t even agree on what the problem is. You think it’s guns; I think it’s people. What makes you think a workable solution that we agree on exists?

You are no different than our domestic liberals. You think compromise is that you will not demand that I give up everything I have if I agree to not demand that I get to keep everything I have. I liken the current gun control argument (its no longer a debate) to a guy stretched to his absolute limit on the rack and the torturer saying he wants to crank it six more clicks and the victim begging for only three more even though one more will pull off his arms. We have given and given and given, and yet the anti-gun fanatics keep asking for more while saying “we are willing to compromise.”

[westaussie]

Why was B Obama’s last appointment to the Supreme Court not considered?

As for the rest of your post: crickets.

[westaussie]

You can liken this debate to whatever tickles your fancy. The fact remains that "thoughts and prayers"is not the answer.

No-one, including me, as said that there is one simple solution to the problem. However, quite clearly there is one side of the debate that is not willing to even have a discussion about it and that side is not the side advocating sensible gun reform.

Not for the first time I will point out that I am not the catalyst for change on this issue in the USA. Probably fewer than 100 USA citizens are aware of my posts on this forum.

[mobulis]

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@TheRedComet

That doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Actually, he knows exactly what it means. He has been informed innumerable times.

Nope I’ve been informed of YOUR interpretation.

There is no interpretation necessary. The 2nd is written in simple language. No person who has even basc knowledge of the English language could honestly mistake the words “well regulated” to apply to the people, rather than to the Militia. You are being deliberately obtuse and everyone including you knows it.

If no interpretation was necessary there would be no debate, but there is.

If you insist having an interpretation, look no further than the SCOTUS. In the Heller descision, they stated unequivocally that the right to keep and bear arms was individual right irrespective of the collective of the well regulated Militia. Therefore, the words “well regulated” do NOT apply to the people. Q.E.D.

In other words, it has been interpreted by the supreme authority on the matter. It is ridiculous to pretend that it requires any more debate. Ignorance is forgivable; deliberate ignorance is not.

Their wrong.

[mobulis]

@Samm

@westaussie

This post will be post number 2,153. Of those 2,153 how mny posts have recognised that there is a problem to be resolved? Until there is a recognition of the problem, nothing will change. It will be the accepted norm that in passing the media will report briefly that there has been yet again another incident where a number of people killed at a school, college, cinema, theatre, church etc.

Are you kidding? We can’t even agree on what the problem is. You think it’s guns; I think it’s people. What makes you think a workable solution that we agree on exists?

You are no different than our domestic liberals. You think compromise is that you will not demand that I give up everything I have if I agree to not demand that I get to keep everything I have. I liken the current gun control argument (its no longer a debate) to a guy stretched to his absolute limit on the rack and the torturer saying he wants to crank it six more clicks and the victim begging for only three more even though one more will pull off his arms. We have given and given and given, and yet the anti-gun fanatics keep asking for more while saying “we are willing to compromise.”

Nope the problem is people like you who refuse to accept that guns are PART of the problem.

[Samm]

@westaussie

Why was B Obama’s last appointment to the Supreme Court not considered?

As for the rest of your post: crickets.

If you are implying that is politics on the Court, you are entirely incorrect. All appointments to all courts are done by politicians. The ONLY thing that maters (to this sub-topic) is how they conduct themselves while ON the Court. They are there to judge the letter of the law and the Constitutionality of the law, not to do political bidding.

As to the rest of your post, no big surprise there. You have consistently been very good at avoiding discussing anything that makes you feel uncomfortable.