(08-11-2019 12:22 AM)Kaplony Wrote: (08-10-2019 08:29 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote: (08-10-2019 08:19 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: (08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote: (08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote: Too easy. You need to try harder.
Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/
And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.
The fourth says “unreasonable” search and seizure. The second says “shall not be infringed”. Not hard to understand if one has two brain cells to rub together.
This is like when gun grabbers try to pull the "well-regulated militia" card. If you think the founding fathers would be OK with the f*cking feds grabbing peoples c*cks and rifling through all their chit when they're just trying to get a coffee and board the 5am to Dayton you're insane. Were they petrified of terrorists? F*ck no! Explain air travel to them and they'd tell you to sack up and get on the damn plane and quit signing your rights away by voting for the two party BS system. And that's not even as bad as the heinous chit the DHS, NSA, etc. pull on a daily basis.
Yeah, sure is "reasonable" these days. What a joke. By your logic the government can just set the definition of "unreasonable" all by themselves and do whatever the hell they want.
Just stop.
You've already admitted that you don't believe in the original intent of the founding Fathers in regards to gun. You need to make up your rabbit-assed mind hoplophpobe.
You're so paranoid about muh guns that even an honest question about original intent-- while continuing to state that the 2A is law and has to be followed-- makes someone a "hoplophobe".
Let me clear it up for you: I don't give 2 f*cks if people have guns. I personally don't care for them, but it's in the Constitution, and why it's in there is immaterial because it's the highest law of the land. Keep twisting my words all you want, but I have never stated anything supporting gun control.
I appreciated your response a few days ago on the topic as it was one of the most genuine responses I have ever seen you make. I started putting a post together to show the other side, as there are quotes showing a bit different outlook on the 2A from some founding fathers (which is partially where the "well-regulated militia" comes from, but again that doesn't modify "shall not be infringed"). But you convinced me that at least some did look at it as protection from an overreaching government, and it's a mostly unimportant debate as it doesn't change the law in any way. So I let it be.
Here's the difference, since your panties are in too much of a bunch to get past someone daring to not jack off to guns:
Questioning the intent of the FF in regards to the 2A is purely a thought exercise. Regardless of my personal feelings, the law is the law; there is not wiggle room written in. So the FF's intent doesn't actually matter in the end.
SoMs seized on the word "unreasonable", meanwhile, to justify actual actions by the government. At that point, it becomes relevant to question what the intent of the amendment was, as there is actual wiggle room written in. I personally think it's absurd to suggest the tactics of TSA, not to mention the NSA, DHS, and on and on, would be considered reasonable by the people that wrote the amendment.
Liberty over security.