Seattle restaurant owner mocks death of 9 year old

[Camelfilter]

Does anybody understand my question?

Yes.

Does the 2A include the statement 'the same arms as the government' ?

Yes or no?

Yes. It is inferred.

You can disagree, however, don't ask a question if you will not listen to the answer.

 

[RVTECH]

Show me where the Founding Fathers said that you have the right to bear arms, but with limits on the type of arms.

Show me where in the draft of the 2A it states 'the same arms as the government'
Does it say this - yes or no?

Please answer this question as it is a simple one and do not 'drift' into off-context issues.

 

[EPS]

Show me where it SPECIFICALLY states this.

Please do not offer your interpretation of this - does the 2A include 'the same arms as the government' in its draft?

Yes or no?

I can tell what it doesn't say.
It doesn't say the government can have a Simi auto and you can't and it doesn't say you can only have a hunting rifle and the government can have a machine gun.
It says Arms.
So if the government can have a machine gun .
Then I should be able to have a machine gun.

 

[EPS]

 

[EPS]

 

[RVTECH]

It does not include these words "the same arms as the government"

See how easy that was.

Does ANYONE really understand where I 'went' with all my responses?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The 2nd Amendment is interesting in what it doesn't say .

It does say :
A well regulated Militia , being necessary for the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed.

It does not say :
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , except for these ones...
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , except for Arms of these types , or for these purposes and uses...

To answer RVTECH's question no where in the 2nd Amendment does it actually spell out / list / state explicitly just what Arms are to not to be infringed...or just what Arms are to be allowed.
But...
One needs to look at the intent of the Amendment , the men who wrote it , the history of the period , etc...
In short , one needs to study more than just the Amendments themselves to understand their meanings.

For me the meaning is clear.....
I should be able to own whatever Arms I want....without restriction...others will no doubt disagree.
Andy

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

 

[CoastRange57]

Given that Jefferson would have had the Da Vinci concepts in his collection, and they ENCOURAGED private ownership of warships far bigger and more powerful...

Letters of Marquee issued to private ship owners to take to the high seas under colonial flag to provide a naval power that the organized rebellion against the Crown did not possess or even remotely have the funds to turn out.

Letters of marque and reprisal are commissions or warrants issued to someone to commit what would otherwise be acts of piracy. They will normally contain the following first three elements, unless they imply or refer to a declaration of war to define the enemies, and may optionally contain the remainder:

1. 
   Names person, authorizes him to pass beyond borders with forces under his command.
2. Specifies nationality of targets for action.
3. Authorizes seizure or destruction of assets or personnel of target nationality.
4. Describes offense for which commission is issued as reprisal.
5. Restriction on time, manner, place, or amount of reprisal.

Many of these documents were taken, with permission, from the site, which is about piracy and letters of marque. Here is a link to our local copy of their Letters of Marque page.
The U.S. Constitution provides, Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11:

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Original URL: //www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/lmr.htm Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society Original date: 2007/12/28 — Last updated 2020/1/11	​

 

[ActionHero1980]

See how easy that was.

Does ANYONE really understand where I 'went' with all my responses?

What about the rest?
"It does not include these words "the same arms as the government" it uses "shall not be infringed" to convey a similar meaning"

Does shall not be infringed have no meaning? I would argue to prove how "shall not be infringed" leaves room for the government to pick and choose what arms we can bear.

 

[EPS]

I was just going to say I'm I in the right thread.
Anyway like I posted .
It appears they were shot with one shot both where hit with buckshot in the chest.
They were in a deer drive.
I would like to know if they had a hunting orange vest or something on .
Or where they just camo clothes and driving deer .

 

[ActionHero1980]

One things for certain, straight from the man himself, no arguing about these words

 

[Knebel]

What shocks me more is how drunk someone has to be to mistake a Dad and a 9yo girl for a deer...

 

[RVTECH]

What about the rest?

Did I ever anywhere ask about the 'rest?

I suspect most here have never had any advanced communications training - and if not I will offer a suggestion from the 101 class - IF you are ever asked a simple 'Yes or No' question (as I did) the best response is TO answer it appropriately I.E. (yes or no) and wait for a follow up question asking for any additional interpretation, opinions or education - If that even happens.

In my case I NEVER asked for anything additional - I simply wanted an answer to my original question which only required a Yes or No answer without all the added conjecture.

Does this make sense ?

 

[ActionHero1980]

Did I ever anywhere ask about the 'rest?

I suspect most here have never had any advanced communications training - and if not I will offer a suggestion from the 101 class - IF you are ever asked a simple 'Yes or No' question (as I did) the best response is TO answer it appropriately I.E. (yes or no) and wait for a follow up question asking for any additional interpretation, opinions or education - If that even happens.

In my case I NEVER asked for anything additional - I simply wanted an answer to my original question which only required a Yes or No answer without all the added conjecture.

Does this make sense ?

Sounds like advanced cop or lawyer comunications training. We should probably stop derailing this thread but I have to ask, what was the point to all this? It seems like you wanted a yes or no answer for something thats not as simple as yes or no. I still say yes, it communicates "same arms as the government" it just uses different words.

By your rules, does the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed mean the government gets to choose what arms you may bear?

Ill leave it at that, so to get the thread back on track

 

[WillametteWill]

I suspect most here have never had any advanced communications training - and if not I will offer a suggestion from the 101 class - IF you are ever asked a simple 'Yes or No' question (as I did) the best response is TO answer it appropriately I.E. (yes or no)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no.

Asking a question as a yes or no question when there is SUBSTANTIAL room for context, history, etc. is a bad attorney trick that I have derailed more times than I can count in court. On this topic there is considerable room to agree in principle and respectfully discuss the nuance. Perhaps we can all learn (and help each other keep our 2A rights in the process).

And yes, I have had substantial communications training. It is my profession.

With respect to all.

 

[RVTECH]

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no.

How does this equate to a question I asked about a statement made referencing something that does NOT exist in the draft of the 2A - yet all everyone wants to do is add 'meaning'. 'conjecture' etc. when all I asked was if the line 'the same arms as the government' IS or is NOT in the draft - yet everyone seems to be pizzing their pants about SIMPLY answering yes or no?

I am NOT asking for explanation, added meaning or anything extra - just a simple Yes or No to the question. But no one wants to do this.

OK - so I will answer it - NO it does not exist. And I am NOT asking for anything further or any arguments.

 

[CamoDeafie]

@RVTECH ; show me in the Constitution where it says that government is not made up of the people.

Also... why does it say the right of the people to keep and bear arms instead of say... the right of the State/Militia to keep and bear arms; if the people were not meant to keep government in check?

 

[RVTECH]

Also... why does it say the right of the people to keep and bear arms instead of say... the right of the State/Militia to keep and bear arms; if the people were not meant to keep government in check?

None of this is germane to my original question so why are you asking this?

Why not simply answer MY question?

 

[s1xty7]

On topic, and I apologize if this has been covered because I have not read all the replies, but this isn't a left VS right issue. This is an unfortunate accident and a horrible response by someone so consumed by hate, they are blind to the tragedy at hand. I don't feel it is indicative of how the majority of the "left" would react, or even how this individual would respond if they gave it some actual thought. Sometimes we get so caught up in politics, we seem to forget we are all humans trying to survive the best we can. Regardless of opinion about any topic, there is no need to forego kindness to our fellow man. Even a drugged up intruder breaking into my house, whom I will deal with in any way to protect my family, is still a person. They still were a young child once. They had a family that loved them. They had hopes and dreams. They had in them the power for greatness, but ended up down a different path. All too often we devolve to defensive behavior, finger pointing, and name calling. The human race is doomed if we can't learn to live together better than that.

My thoughts are with the family and friends of the deceased and I hope that Lana does some soul searching and corrects the error of her ways.