Witnesses say many dead, injured in shooting at New Zealand mosque

Give me an example of anything that isn’t “open to interpretation”, or is less open to interpretation than

“The right of the people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Your critique is without merit. There is no language that a legislature or court will not interpret. There are ample examples of extremely precise and direct language being ignored.

This.

You could write up a sample second amendment that you think would cover every possible contingency. It would be 10k words long and there would STILL be individual words in there that courts would try to parse.
 
just as Bible during reformation in the West, and during spread of Christianity in the East was translated into commonly spoken language, 2a was written not for lawyers but common man, in simple, disambiguous words. If you start pulling apart "what 'is' is?" and read it backwards, no limit to what conclusions can be made.

57753d5742c6e.image.jpg
 
I haven't read all 16 pages, but I can't find any reports of the 2nd mosque shooting being stopped by an armed civilian? I saw that somewhere on a conservative website but can't find it anywhere else.

It's strange that they mention the 2nd mosque with 5 dead, but no details at all about what happened at that site, all the news talk about just the 1st mosque.
Upon further research, he was not armed with a gun. The guy threw a credit card machine at the attacker and the attacker left.
 
Problem is, our founding fathers did not go far enough WRT specific language in the Second Amendment. Leaving things open to interpretation is never a good idea. Most of our anti-gun lawmakers also have law degrees and licenses to practice law. These slick twisters of the law have, on many occasions, suggested that it is a collective right and that a "well-organized militia" means local and state police as well as National Guard. SCOTUS rulings also made it clear that our 2A rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions. We here at NES correctly call out such nonsense for the false concept that it is. Unfortunately, most others, including many gun owners (like Fudds) actually believe it and are OK with it.

The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty f***ing clear. The courts are wrong and failed, because of personal believes, and personal agendas.


View: https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ
 
This.

You could write up a sample second amendment that you think would cover every possible contingency. It would be 10k words long and there would STILL be individual words in there that courts would try to parse.
This is why Socrates never wrote anything down. Because, as soon as you write it down, you’re not there to defend it against someone twisting the words.

And lo and behold, Plato wrote some of the things Socrates talked about, and when I got to college I found out that, yup, Socrates was right. Bunch of douchenozzles twisted his words or mistranslated it. On purpose.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It cannot be any more clear.
 
Give me an example of anything that isn’t “open to interpretation”, or is less open to interpretation than

“The right of the people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Your critique is without merit. There is no language that a legislature or court will not interpret. There are ample examples of extremely precise and direct language being ignored.

If they can't interpret it, they'll ignore it, like what happens in NY, MA, CA etc.
 
Upon further research, he was not armed with a gun. The guy threw a credit card machine at the attacker and the attacker left.

I believe he also threw an empty gun (after trying to fire it first) that shooter discarded and broke a car window, which is when guy drove off. In any event no shots fired at shooter.
 
I literally wish I had not opened the second video... NZ isn't even a blip on the violence scale compared to what is shown in the Brazil videos.

Nobody probably cares about brazilian alpo chunks though because:

A. this involves brown people; and
B. nobody gives a shit about this particular subset of brown people (prisoners in a shithole country).

I'm going to guess liveleak got threatened by some .gov types either from the US or NZ etc on this guy's crap, whether they're willing to admit it or not.

It does make you wonder though... that's just Brazil... theres a lot of 2nd and 3rd world prisons that are probably similar, and nobody knows a thing because "no cameras"
etc. Probably makes a lot of the shit that Kim Jong Un did to his family look "polite" in comparison.

-Mike
 
Bullshit. They leave even more vile stuff on their site. Look up Brazil prison riot.. But be warned.
I watched it and it’s unfortunate that you are watching people die but it was really not that bad. I’ve seen stuff on other sites that will make you literally cringe and think how the hell can someone do that to another person.
 
But they aren't saying they took it down due to the graphic content. They took it down because they say it is propaganda (take that for what it is).
Propaganda is a nice way of saying they don’t want you to be able to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions. They want to force feed you their version. As heinous as some of those videos are I’m glad they are out there. Forces you to be a little less complacent and comfortable. Reminds you the world can be a f***** up place and to not always believe what you are being told.
 
But they aren't saying they took it down due to the graphic content. They took it down because they say it is propaganda (take that for what it is).

I think they totally could be being consistent with not showing propaganda... but I also find it hard to believe that they don't at least have .gov intimidation in the backs of their minds.

(Some of) Those of you complaining don't get to have it both ways. You can't shit on the news media for making all these killers famous (which they do), and then shit on alternative media for not showing propaganda which can/does/will lead to more of the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom