Latest On Sunday's Joel Osteen Megachurch Mass Shooter

a reply to: chr0naut

Name a benign use other than sports target shooting.

To quote you: "You can't exclude parts of the data to better suit your point"

It all depends on what your definition of benign is, for this particular argument.

They have chemical, biological, nuclear and conventional weapons that can be deployed over the horizon or remotely. They have superior armour and superior firepower. They could blockade people and starve or them or cut water supplies, cut roads, block tunnels, knock aircraft out of the sky, and down bridges. Guns are irrelevant if they wanted to enslave or kill.

Do you read these things out loud to yourself before you post them? Here I was thinking you had at least half a brain, then I read this and you proved me wrong.

Have you ever noticed what kind of countries that do this to their people? Those that have a defenseless populous.

Take a look at history in the US, what happened last time the government was dividing the country? What happened last time states were removing candidates they did not like from the ballot? The Civil War, and guess who lost, those that were dividing and removing things.

So tell me again how the citizens of the US having guns to defend ourselves from tyrannical government is such a bad thing?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

The whole of the 2nd is a single clause, in fact also a single sentence. It isn't even sub-divided into sub-clauses.

But, as it isn't part of preamble, it is operative. All of it.

How many SCOTUS decisions do you require to be proven incorrect?

And you accuse me of being authoritarian?

I do not acknowledge any decision by any part of the US government as relevant to anyone from the rest of the world outside of the US.

I am a native English speaker and know how legal statute works, where every part of a legal clause has meaning that defines the law. I have also read the Federation papers (with specific attention to 29), and know the intent behind the authorship of the 2nd Amendment.

That being said, these have been the decision of SCOTUS judges on the 2nd Amendment:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose - Justice Antonin Scalia, 'District of Columbia V. Heller (2008)':

Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid conviction, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. - Justice Harry Blackmun, 'Lewis v. U.S. (1980)'

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, a court cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. - Justice James Clark McReynolds, 'U.S. v. Miller (1939)'

Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except those that are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. - Justice William Burnham Woods 'Presser v. Illinois (1886)'

The Second Amendment declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but this means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government. - Justice Morrison R. Waite, 'U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)'

So, historically, the 2nd Amendment only covers national law, is regulable by the states, is not an overriding or unlimited statute, and regulators may err on the side of caution in application of gun control, despite the gun lobby portraying things somewhat differently.

I am centrist. I disavow communism, big ivory-tower government, and excess political control.

Were that true, you wouldn't be a proponent of removing people's civil rights, nor would you condone a mandated vaccine...

Like I said, when/if you come to the realization of what you advocate for, you'll throw up on your clown shoes.

The power to kill or maim someone is not a civil right. It is of clear and evil intent.

I never condoned mandatory vaccination, as I have explained to you frequently.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Name a benign use other than sports target shooting.

To quote you: "You can't exclude parts of the data to better suit your point"

It all depends on what your definition of benign is, for this particular argument.

'Benign' would be a use that does not kill or maim, or have intention or possible outcome to do so.

Yet you said that there were "a plethora of benign uses", but are yet to name any, despite being asked.

They have chemical, biological, nuclear and conventional weapons that can be deployed over the horizon or remotely. They have superior armour and superior firepower. They could blockade people and starve or them or cut water supplies, cut roads, block tunnels, knock aircraft out of the sky, and down bridges. Guns are irrelevant if they wanted to enslave or kill.

Do you read these things out loud to yourself before you post them? Here I was thinking you had at least half a brain, then I read this and you proved me wrong.

Have you ever noticed what kind of countries that do this to their people? Those that have a defenceless populous.

The United States has done these things to its citizens.

- In Flynt Texas, they provided contaminated water to the population and cut the clean water supplies.
- In New York, they dusted the city with toxins dropped from aircraft, and sprayed the subways, to examine what a more lethal CBW attack would look like.
- In Operation Northwoods, it was proposed that the government begin a bombing campaign against the US people, that they would blame on the Cubans.
- In Tuskakeegie they purposely did not treat US citizens who had preventable and deadly disease, just to watch the progression of the untreated disease as it killed.
- The US government marines and armed forces have several times deployed against and killed US citizens, probably the worst instance was in Washington where heavy artillery and armed troops were deployed against a peaceful protest, resulting in several deaths at the hands of the armed forces.

Take a look at history in the US, what happened last time the government was dividing the country? What happened last time states were removing candidates they did not like from the ballot? The Civil War, and guess who lost, those that were dividing and removing things.

As I recall, 'the South' seceded from the pre-existing government formed by the Union of states. The South lost, the US government won.

The guns they used in the rebellion were not protective. There was significant loss of life on both sides. The armed conflict on both sides were not the common people with guns, they were uniformed and centrally organized armed forces.

Abraham Lincoln had just been elected as President of the Union prior to the secession, and the conflict lasted for less than the Presidential term of office. As far as I can tell, there were no ballots or voting for candidates during that period for anyone to be removed from.

So tell me again how the citizens of the US having guns to defend ourselves from tyrannical government is such a bad thing?

Because it doesn't work.

The US government is a tyranny - both historically, and even now.

All those extremist and heavily armed groups which are consistently arrested, defeated, and killed by government forces are ample evidence of that tyranny, and of the futility of armed resistance.

But the US government espouses democracy, that is the path of most effect against tyranny.

a reply to: chr0naut

Sitting here, responding to you, can have the possible outcome of death, you are really stretching to try and make me believe I would be better of without my guns bud.

In Flynt Texas, they provided contaminated water to the population and cut the clean water supplies.

Flint, Michigan had a water issue. If you're going to argue, make your facts correct.

In Operation Northwoods, it was proposed that the government begin a bombing campaign against the US people, that they would blame on the Cubans.

Proposes key word there. Yeah, it's #ty that they would even propose something stupid like that but they did not do it so it's a nothingburger.

The US government marines and armed forces have several times deployed against and killed US citizens, probably the worst instance was in Washington where heavy artillery and armed troops were deployed against a peaceful protest, resulting in several deaths at the hands of the armed forces.

Where and when? I need links to back up your outlandish claims. And don't give me some bull# of "you can find it yourself". You claim it, you back it up or gtfo


You should really do some more research on the history of what you are trying to claim you know about before going any further. There were, for sure, ballots to vote on a president back then.

All those extremist and heavily armed groups which are consistently arrested, defeated

Name them and when they were "defeated".

The only "futility of armed resistance" is people like you that see it as a "they will win regardless, might as well lay down and die while doing nothing".

And gone.
This shooting won’t be talked about in the news again until another tranny decides to FAFO.

a reply to: chr0naut

" The power to kill or maim someone is not a civil right. It is of clear and evil intent."


True . Case in Point , the History of the British Empire .

originally posted by: Vermilion

And gone.
This shooting won’t be talked about in the news again until another tranny decides to FAFO.

^^ That. This story had everything that the left wing media hates to talk about. It's gone.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Sitting here, responding to you, can have the possible outcome of death, you are really stretching to try and make me believe I would be better of without my guns bud.

In Flynt Texas, they provided contaminated water to the population and cut the clean water supplies.

Flint, Michigan had a water issue. If you're going to argue, make your facts correct.

Yes, I made a mistake on that one. You are correct.

In Operation Northwoods, it was proposed that the government begin a bombing campaign against the US people, that they would blame on the Cubans.

Proposes key word there. Yeah, it's #ty that they would even propose something stupid like that but they did not do it so it's a nothingburger.

The US government marines and armed forces have several times deployed against and killed US citizens, probably the worst instance was in Washington where heavy artillery and armed troops were deployed against a peaceful protest, resulting in several deaths at the hands of the armed forces.

Where and when? I need links to back up your outlandish claims. And don't give me some bull# of "you can find it yourself". You claim it, you back it up or gtfo

Bonus Army - Army intervention - Wikipedia

You should really do some more research on the history of what you are trying to claim you know about before going any further. There were, for sure, ballots to vote on a president back then.

I never said that there weren't "ballots to vote on a president back then", or anything like it. I am not sure what you are arguing in that regard?

All those extremist and heavily armed groups which are consistently arrested, defeated

Name them and when they were "defeated".

The only "futility of armed resistance" is people like you that see it as a "they will win regardless, might as well lay down and die while doing nothing".

Of all the violent protests, rebellions, vigilante groups, riots, and so forth in the USA, have any of them directly effected a change of government?

After the framing of the 2nd amendment, has change of government ever happened except by the Constitutionally mandated way? Has it happened due to gun violence or force of arms?

a reply to: chr0naut

As far as I can tell, there were no ballots or voting for candidates during that period for anyone to be removed from.

Yup, nowhere did you ever say that there were no ballots to vote on......


Again who are these groups you are referring to and when we're they "defeated" by the government.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

As far as I can tell, there were no ballots or voting for candidates during that period for anyone to be removed from.

Yup, nowhere did you ever say that there were no ballots to vote on......

Again who are these groups you are referring to and when we're they "defeated" by the government.

I didn't write "there were no ballots to vote on". I wrote "ballots or voting for candidates", within the context of voting for a new President.

The issue is with your comprehension and paraphrase, and taking things out of the context that they were presented in.

a reply to: chr0naut

Always funny on these forums that a direct copy and paste quote from someone to prove them wrong is me having a "comprehension issue" and "paraphrasing out of context"

Anyone can go back and see the exact quote you made. But sure, go ahead and blame me for your cranium rectus problem.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Always funny on these forums that a direct copy and paste quote from someone to prove them wrong is me having a "comprehension issue" and "paraphrasing out of context"

Anyone can go back and see the exact quote you made. But sure, go ahead and blame me for your cranium rectus problem.

Yes, you did copy and paste, but then you immediately paraphrased it with a question that was not the wording, nor in the context of, the quote.

Anyone can go back and see the quote I posted, and even the bit you then quoted, and they can also the difference to the question that you asked, and repeated.

a reply to: chr0naut

no ballots or voting for candidates

So you are going to sit there and tell me this does not mean "no ballots"? These are your exact words, if that is not what you meant then you should really think a little more before posting something.

You should probably get your head checked

A lack of knowledge on your part does not constitute a comprehension problem on mine

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

no ballots or voting for candidates

So you are going to sit there and tell me this does not mean "no ballots"? These are your exact words, if that is not what you meant then you should really think a little more before posting something.

You should probably get your head checked

A lack of knowledge on your part does not constitute a comprehension problem on mine

Sentences start with a capital letter and end with a stop. You can't legitimately think you can just cherry pick bits of a sentence?

That would be as silly as suggesting that the 2nd Amendment is not talking about a well regulated militia.

a reply to: chr0naut

But anyways, lets get back into the meat and potatoes of this shall we?

What new laws do you propose the US government impose to make sure that guns cease to be the issue?

Background checks? Oh wait, we already have those. Next

Age restrictions? Oh, again, already have those....

Restrictions on who can own guns? Again, already here

Red flag laws? Already deemed unconstitutional by courts

Requirements to report any lost or stolen guns? Those of us that have legal guns would already do that, it's those that have illegal ones that hide that fact.



As I have stated before, laws are already in place, and those that don't follow them are not going to follow new ones. The only ones you will be punishing are those of us that already follow all of the laws.

a reply to: chr0naut

Quotes don't have to be full sentences bud......

You were shown to be incorrect, move on from it

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Quotes don't have to be full sentences bud......

You were shown to be incorrect, move on from it

... and you don't have to be truthful, I get that, too.

Your latest allegation is a deliberate twisting of the truth and you have done this through multiple posts on multiple threads.

It's your modus operandi. It's probably also your filter that you use to interpret the world.

We can all see that.

a reply to: chr0naut

So you're saying you lie in your posts? If me quoting you is not the truth then that can only mean you are lying.


And what exactly is my "latest allegation"?

Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean that it is a "deliberate twist" you follow me throughout threads about guns yet can't seem to understand the real reason we have a "gun problem" you choose to ignore, like you did with my latest response to you, and just want to make outlandish claims that mean nothing.


Have fun in your sheep world with that wool pulled over your eyes. Whenever you want to lift it and see the truth come back and we will all show you.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

But anyways, lets get back into the meat and potatoes of this shall we?

What new laws do you propose the US government impose to make sure that guns cease to be the issue?

Background checks? Oh wait, we already have those. Next

Age restrictions? Oh, again, already have those....

Restrictions on who can own guns? Again, already here

Red flag laws? Already deemed unconstitutional by courts

Requirements to report any lost or stolen guns? Those of us that have legal guns would already do that, it's those that have illegal ones that hide that fact.

As I have stated before, laws are already in place, and those that don't follow them are not going to follow new ones. The only ones you will be punishing are those of us that already follow all of the laws.

Ah, the "... but Brawndo has electrolytes" defence! Hmmm. a difficult one.



In answer to that, a number of countries have implemented strict gun control which has vastly curtailed gun related deaths from all causes.

I could suggest a few things:

- Repeal the 2nd Amendment as; it is outdated, it cannot possibly do what it was framed to achieve, (in fact it is the very path to tyranny in very many historical cases, where an armed faction has risen up and imposed a tyrant), and it is actively enabling danger, violence, suicide and crime against the citizenry of the country.

- Then you would make owning an illegal firearm itself a crime, where; imprisonment, fines, confiscation and destruction of all purpose-built weapons, are all automatic sentences upon conviction, and that these sentences would multiply according to the number of illegal weapons seized (i.e: 5 illegal guns = 5x the fine and 5x prison time).

- Then you would define all future purchases of firearms by any other means than than the approved, registered, licensed and qualifying means as an illegal purchase, where both seller and buyer receive the same automatic sentences as other firearm infractions.

- Taking someone's life in the commission of a crime is an automatic natural-life sentence usually with only specific conditional chance of parole upon conviction. However, convicted murderers may still have full right of appeal, but they must continue to serve their sentence until the time they are exonerated. Parole may be granted if the convict is deemed to have fully financially compensated the close families of the victim/s and the court system costs and imprisonment related costs, to the satisfaction of the court.

- Gun control laws must be Federally consistent.

- The firearms/s need to be licensed to ensure they are fit for purpose, will not discharge unexpectedly, and will not explode upon use.

- The gun possessor needs to be licensed; to verify that they are of sound mind, are careful about safety, have no malicious intent, and have no criminal convictions. Licenses expire and must be renewed on a schedule. If the licensing officer has concerns, they can defer issuance of the license and can direct the licensee to remediate their concerns.

- If someone in possession of a firearm cannot present both their current 'gun-possessor' license and firearm 'fitness for purpose' license to an officer of the law upon request, then that could be grounds for arrest, pending legal action.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

So you're saying you lie in your posts?

I was talking about you.

If me quoting you is not the truth then that can only mean you are lying.

You misquoted me. You did not tell the truth. You lied.

And what exactly is my "latest allegation"?

See, you know what you said, and when. If there were any doubt, you could also just look back through your post history.

Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean that it is a "deliberate twist" you follow me throughout threads about guns yet can't seem to understand the real reason we have a "gun problem" you choose to ignore, like you did with my latest response to you, and just want to make outlandish claims that mean nothing.

I don't follow you through threads about guns, you followed me. I was here first: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have fun in your sheep world with that wool pulled over your eyes. Whenever you want to lift it and see the truth come back and we will all show you.

This is an online forum. There are better sources.