Doc Holliday said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

That's quite the take....

The media is the enemy of the people.

---

They're showing their true colors.

Many are trying to justify the motive of the shooter.

---

These leftists are just as suicidal as it gets.

They call us "rightwing nutjobs" and "gun nuts"... and then they blatantly try to start a shooting war with us? What the hell do they think is going to happen?

It is truly truly sad, but the leftist will not be happy until they get the civil war that they want. They will not be happy until the streets run red with blood.

They are like a single person entering a lions den to antagonize the pride... while wearing a suit made of raw meat. Insanely stupid and completely suicidal.

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Because it was understood in the 18th century, just like it is today, that rights were not absolute.

---

Riiiiight, they just didn't bother writing that part down. Hahahahaha

---

They didn't believe that people would be so dense as to think that rights were absolute, so they didn't bother writing it down.

But let's see how your interpretation works on other amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A law against child porn is "a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

Laws against libel and slander are laws abridging freedom of speech and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

---

I didn't see "shall not be infringed" on the first amendment so you still can't watch your child porn.
Imagine being so **** all stupid as to think the constitution came with an unspoken caveat that all rights were subject to the whims of the government. Incredible.

---

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make *no law,*" so by your definition your child porn should be legal ("no law" means "no law" right?) Fortunately, of course, no court has ever or will ever accept your view of the law, so there's that.

---

What an idiot.

The 1st says NOTHING about pictures or artwork. It is extremely specific about speech. It is also specific about the rights of "the press", which is not the same as something that you wrote down in your diary.

How can you be this stupid?

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

That's quite the take....

The media is the enemy of the people.

---

They're showing their true colors.

Many are trying to justify the motive of the shooter.

---

These leftists are just as suicidal as it gets.

They call us "rightwing nutjobs" and "gun nuts"... and then they blatantly try to start a shooting war with us? What the hell do they think is going to happen?

It is truly truly sad, but the leftist will not be happy until they get the civil war that they want. They will not be happy until the streets run red with blood.

They are like a single person entering a lions den to antagonize the pride... while wearing a suit made of raw meat. Insanely stupid and completely suicidal.

---

There's no reality where they win.

If you gave them all the power they wanted, they'd destroy themselves with infighting and their own devious tactics. They would also break the system and lose power doing so.

That pesky Christian school massacre really diluted all the Trans protests

As transgender-rights advocates rallied outside Kentucky’s Capitol, a trans teenager held up a sign summing up a grim review of Republican legislation aimed at banning access to gender-affirming health care. The sign read: “Our blood is on your hands.” https://t.co/z1DWB2hKej

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) March 29, 2023

If there aren’t closed-door meetings of gays and lesbians discussing how to get the trans psychosis under control before it gets them all (redacted), they’re not as politically adept as I gave them credit for. #LGBWithoutTheTQ

— Martyr Made 🦉🪓 (@martyrmade) March 31, 2023

Jack Bauer said:

---

That pesky Christian school massacre really diluted all the Trans protests

As transgender-rights advocates rallied outside Kentucky’s Capitol, a trans teenager held up a sign summing up a grim review of Republican legislation aimed at banning access to gender-affirming health care. The sign read: “Our blood is on your hands.” https://t.co/z1DWB2hKej

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) March 29, 2023

---

You’ve got to hand it to trans. One of theirs killed some kids for political reasons, and they’re the ones storming the state capitol as the media worries about a backlash against them. pic.twitter.com/NGUCdGXlF5

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) March 30, 2023

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

Might be the wrong person to ask. I really, REALLY want an A10 Warthog.

---

Can you answer the question? It's a simple "Yes" or "No".

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I'm sorry you didn't understand my response. If I want such weapons then others should have access too, right? Only convicted criminals lose their rights, everyone else is supposed to be assumed a decent American.

---

So you have already violated "shall not be infringed" in your response.

---

The second amendment was not written for prisoners. We have always had consequences for crimes. Only an idiot would think "Shall not be infringed" means prisoners should be armed, and only and idiot would think "shall not be infringed" means whatever they want to make up after that to change the meaning is fine.

---

That sounds like a lot of modernist interpretation to me.

Is it "shall not be infringed" or isn't it? Now you seem to be giving a different answer.

---

The whole gun control argument should have died the moment a former head state was killed by an improvised firearm in one of the countries with the most restrictive gun laws in the world. pic.twitter.com/f5AWC51iRR

— la Lechuza (@0wlGhost) March 30, 2023

ShooterTX said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Because it was understood in the 18th century, just like it is today, that rights were not absolute.

---

Riiiiight, they just didn't bother writing that part down. Hahahahaha

---

They didn't believe that people would be so dense as to think that rights were absolute, so they didn't bother writing it down.

But let's see how your interpretation works on other amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A law against child porn is "a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

Laws against libel and slander are laws abridging freedom of speech and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

---

I didn't see "shall not be infringed" on the first amendment so you still can't watch your child porn.
Imagine being so **** all stupid as to think the constitution came with an unspoken caveat that all rights were subject to the whims of the government. Incredible.

---

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make *no law,*" so by your definition your child porn should be legal ("no law" means "no law" right?) Fortunately, of course, no court has ever or will ever accept your view of the law, so there's that.

---

What an idiot.

The 1st says NOTHING about pictures or artwork. It is extremely specific about speech. It is also specific about the rights of "the press", which is not the same as something that you wrote down in your diary.

How can you be this stupid?

---

So if you drew a cartoon lampooning Joe Biden, this would not be protected by the First Amendment (because it would be "pictures or artwork.")

Do you really believe that, or are you just incapable of thinking your ideas through?

Children and Joe Biden as your examples? I can help your argument with some examples! Two birds, one stone.

Wangchung said:

---

Children and Joe Biden as your examples? I can help your argument with some examples! Two birds, one stone.

---

Right. Now how about a cartoon drawn depicting Biden and his teenage daughter naked together in a shower with him caressing her hair published in a newspaper?

ShooterTX said:

---

JXL said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Because it was understood in the 18th century, just like it is today, that rights were not absolute.

---

Riiiiight, they just didn't bother writing that part down. Hahahahaha

---

They didn't believe that people would be so dense as to think that rights were absolute, so they didn't bother writing it down.

But let's see how your interpretation works on other amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A law against child porn is "a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

Laws against libel and slander are laws abridging freedom of speech and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

---

I didn't see "shall not be infringed" on the first amendment so you still can't watch your child porn.
Imagine being so **** all stupid as to think the constitution came with an unspoken caveat that all rights were subject to the whims of the government. Incredible.

---

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make *no law,*" so by your definition your child porn should be legal ("no law" means "no law" right?) Fortunately, of course, no court has ever or will ever accept your view of the law, so there's that.

---

What an idiot.

The 1st says NOTHING about pictures or artwork. It is extremely specific about speech. It is also specific about the rights of "the press", which is not the same as something that you wrote down in your diary.

How can you be this stupid?

---

So if you drew a cartoon lampooning Joe Biden, this would not be protected by the First Amendment (because it would be "pictures or artwork.")

Do you really believe that, or are you just incapable of thinking your ideas through?

---

I was praying this morning and feel very bad about what I said.

We disagree, but I was unnecessarily harsh and personal.

I sincerely apologize. I'm trying to control my temper... obviously I failed.

---

It's all good. My response was un-called for and I apologize as well.

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).

An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)

All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)

Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).

All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.

And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

contrario said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).

An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)

All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)

Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).

All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.

And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.

---

States can't license "the press," nor can the "require a church to register to practice religion." Nevertheless, your point is well taken.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Yes. The purpose was to keep us free from tyrants. Like the kind of tyrants that prosecute political opponents and put healthy, law-abiding people under house arrest without just cause over virus and coerce them to put a needle in their arm over scary unseen particle.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Yes. The purpose was to keep us free from tyrants. Like the kind of tyrants that prosecute political opponents and put healthy, law-abiding people under house arrest without just cause over virus and coerce them to put a needle in their arm over scary unseen particle.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

The first word of my response was yes.

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Please answer my question first.

Thanks.

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Yes. The purpose was to keep us free from tyrants. Like the kind of tyrants that prosecute political opponents and put healthy, law-abiding people under house arrest without just cause over virus and coerce them to put a needle in their arm over scary unseen particle.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

The first word of my response was yes.

---

The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted, among other things, the following:
Minors buying guns
Felons possessing guns
Mentally unstable people possessing guns

Add to this the possession of chemical weapons and plutonium/uranium/etc. is also illegal.

Do you agree or disagree with these restrictions placed upon US Citizens 2nd amendment rights?

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Please answer my question first.

Thanks.

---

I literally answered your question.

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Please answer my question first.

Thanks.

---

I literally answered your question.

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

No, you presented a hypothetical.

What do you believe the Founders meant in using that specific phrase?

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Please answer my question first.

Thanks.

---

I literally answered your question.

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

No, you presented a hypothetical.

What do you believe the Founders meant in using that specific phrase?

---

I don't know the exact reason why because I wasn't in the room when it was being drafted. It's certainly a possibility.

Are you so argumentative that you won't take that as answer?

I have in good faith answered your question. Can you answer mine?

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Yes. The purpose was to keep us free from tyrants. Like the kind of tyrants that prosecute political opponents and put healthy, law-abiding people under house arrest without just cause over virus and coerce them to put a needle in their arm over scary unseen particle.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

The first word of my response was yes.

---

The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted, among other things, the following:
Minors buying guns
Felons possessing guns
Mentally unstable people possessing guns

Add to this the possession of chemical weapons and plutonium/uranium/etc. is also illegal.

Do you agree or disagree with these restrictions placed upon US Citizens 2nd amendment rights?

---

No. I think that if you are capable of service to a militia or to the military, there should be no restriction on your right to own any kind of weapon. Minors, felons, and the mentally ill are all unfit for militia or military service. So, those classes of people are necessarily are banned from weapons possession by a plain reading of the Second Amendment.

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Yes. The purpose was to keep us free from tyrants. Like the kind of tyrants that prosecute political opponents and put healthy, law-abiding people under house arrest without just cause over virus and coerce them to put a needle in their arm over scary unseen particle.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

The first word of my response was yes.

---

The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted, among other things, the following:
Minors buying guns
Felons possessing guns
Mentally unstable people possessing guns

Add to this the possession of chemical weapons and plutonium/uranium/etc. is also illegal.

Do you agree or disagree with these restrictions placed upon US Citizens 2nd amendment rights?

---

No. I think that if you are capable of service to a militia or to the military, there should be no restriction on your right to own any kind of weapon. Minors, felons, and the mentally ill are all unfit for militia or military service. So, those classes of people are necessarily are banned from weapons possession by a plain reading of the First Amendment.

---

So you do believe in the restrictions placed in 1968. Note that those restrictions were not necessarily in place prior to that law. So the SECOND amendment has nothing to do with it.

Does your interpretation include the idea that all who are "unfit for military service" are excluded from 2nd amendment rights? If not, then fitness for military service is not a valid argument.

Also, to clarify, in your opinion chemical weapons and plutonium should be made available to any adult citizen who is not a felon or officially diagnosed with a mental disability?

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Double post

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Yes. The purpose was to keep us free from tyrants. Like the kind of tyrants that prosecute political opponents and put healthy, law-abiding people under house arrest without just cause over virus and coerce them to put a needle in their arm over scary unseen particle.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

The first word of my response was yes.

---

The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted, among other things, the following:
Minors buying guns
Felons possessing guns
Mentally unstable people possessing guns

Add to this the possession of chemical weapons and plutonium/uranium/etc. is also illegal.

Do you agree or disagree with these restrictions placed upon US Citizens 2nd amendment rights?

---

No. I think that if you are capable of service to a militia or to the military, there should be no restriction on your right to own any kind of weapon. Minors, felons, and the mentally ill are all unfit for militia or military service. So, those classes of people are necessarily are banned from weapons possession by a plain reading of the First Amendment.

---

So you do believe in the restrictions placed in 1968. Note that those restrictions were not necessarily in place prior to that law. So the SECOND amendment has nothing to do with it.

Does your interpretation include the idea that all who are "unfit for military service" are excluded from 2nd amendment rights? If not, then fitness for military service is not a valid argument.

Also, to clarify, in your opinion chemical weapons and plutonium should be made available to any adult citizen who is not a felon or officially diagnosed with a mental disability?

---

Yep. If you can afford plutonium, then you get plutonium. And I said, that I believe in the Second Amendment as it is written. If you are not fit for militia or military service, then you are outside the scope of the Second Amendment. As you represent the "restrictions" of the 1968 act, those "restrictions" concerning felons, minors, and the mentally ill are consistent with the Second Amendment.