Parkland Shooting

[dfwuno]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

The second amendment clearly states that the federal government cannot pass any laws restricting firearms. Last I checked, "assault rifles" are firearms hence the 2nd amendment says the federal government cannot pass a single law restricting them.

Those restrictions were left up to the states until the 14th amendment.

Not true....."Right of the people to keep and bear arms" nothing about restrictions which are lawful. If it was true what you say SCOTUS would have taken one of the many cases that the states that have bans and or restrictions that were filed against them. You really think the conservative led court would have not taken up on of the cases if in fact they were violating the 2nd amendment.

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by dfwuno

Not true....."Right of the people to keep and bear arms" nothing about restrictions which are lawful. If it was true what you say SCOTUS would have taken one of the many cases that the states that have bans and or restrictions that were filed against them. You really think the conservative led court would have not taken up on of the cases if in fact they were violating the 2nd amendment.

Yes, this is true.

With due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about but yet you insist on talking. I don't understand why some people think other people want to hear their uninformed opinion.

Do you know why the bill of rights were originally added? They were added because the States wanted explicit confirmation the Federal government wouldn't pass any laws against them. In the Constitution there was a clause that any jurisdiction not specifically awarded to the Federal government would go to the States - but this wasn't good enough so the people decided to add the Bill of Rights which specifically outlined what the Federal government couldn't touch.

Things got murkier when the 14th amendment was passed which basically protected individuals from states violating their bill of rights. Before then, if a State government wanted to violate your 1st or 2nd or any amendment right - it technically could. That's how slavery was justified for so long. And that's why the 14th amendment was passed.

But prior to the 14th amendment, there was no federal laws regulating firearms. There was a whole host of state laws regulating firearms, but no federal ones.

[CAjerseychick]

article on exactly why a bullet from an AR-15 is different from other guns'-

from the surgeon's perspective-

I would encourage all to read it-

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-guns/553937/

[dfwuno]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

Yes, this is true.

With due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about but yet you insist on talking. I don't understand why some people think other people want to hear their uninformed opinion.

Do you know why the bill of rights were originally added? They were added because the States wanted explicit confirmation the Federal government wouldn't pass any laws against them. In the Constitution there was a clause that any jurisdiction not specifically awarded to the Federal government would go to the States - but this wasn't good enough so the people decided to add the Bill of Rights which specifically outlined what the Federal government couldn't touch.

Things got murkier when the 14th amendment was passed which basically protected individuals from states violating their bill of rights. Before then, if a State government wanted to violate your 1st or 2nd or any amendment right - it technically could. That's how slavery was justified for so long. And that's why the 14th amendment was passed.

But prior to the 14th amendment, there was no federal laws regulating firearms. There was a whole host of state laws regulating firearms, but no federal ones.

Maybe if you googled and fact checked more instead of thinking your the supreme voice of knowledge you might think different........then again I don't think you would. Maybe try this : Google The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute.........A mind is a terrible......oh never mind

[City Guy997S]

Originally Posted by phlinak

I don't know what point you were trying to make but thank you for proving my point.

You had to go back to the 1960s to find one example of an individual who killed 17 people without using a weapon like the AR-15.

Yet, we can both probably think of at least dozen mass shootings that have occured since the 1990s involving AR-15s, AK-47s, and similar battlefield rifles.

By the way, if you more carefully read my post, then you will see that I acknowledged the existence and use of semi-automatic weapons, not automatic weapons, in mass shootings.

But wait, the AR15 was invented in 1963 and the AK-47 was invented back in 1949 so how have these awful weapons been on their best behavior for 50 years before going berserk and causing all these killings now?

[City Guy997S]

A little history for you:

Japan 1938- 21 yr old seen as a village outcast killed 35 with a shotgun, an axe and a sword
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuyama_massacre

[City Guy997S]

Originally Posted by CAjerseychick

article on exactly why a bullet from an AR-15 is different from other guns'-

from the surgeon's perspective-

I would encourage all to read it-

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-guns/553937/

Maybe look up a hollow point bullet or close range shotgun wound and see how they do! Maybe a 22 (small gun) bullet bouncing around your body internally because it doesn't have enough power to get out the backside.

HINT- B U L L E T W O U N D S A R E D E A D L Y!

[QuilterChick]

Without my going through scads of posts and scrambling my brain, has anyone come across any posts regarding whether or not the FBI, police, etc. have thoroughly searched his computer? I know it sounds like one of the first things to do, but given the mounting evidence on this sicko, a lot will be or has been gained.

(pardon if this was discussed before).

[Mr. Lee]

More coming out in the news, seems that Deputies told not to enter school without body cams body cams that they did not have.