Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yelling fire in a theater... yelling bomb on a plane. There’s twoBut, prior restraint is universally illegal. So, your examples suck.The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?
Never has there been a push to infringe on a right guaranteed to millions because of the actions of a few other than the gun-grabbing bullshit. Name one.
You’re either not getting what I’m saying or you are trying to weave around it. The dude wanted to go kill somebody. He wasn’t able to do so because he wasn’t able to walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s a win for the regulation that prevented him from getting the gun. Copy and paste as much as you want but you can’t deny that factI have a great argument with Yrump that you keep dodging. Your comparing to mass shooters and I’m speaking to regulations that prevented the man from buying a gun (that worked) and the venue being a gun free zone which prevented guns from going in.True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.
The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.
Again.... 1 situation out of 320 million people.....
And 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.....where law abiding people can't carry guns, and where time is of the essence in stopping a mass shooter......you have no argument with Trump..... of all the mass shootings, the ones with the lowest amount of casualties are the ones with a law abiding citizen on site with a gun.......
It sounds to me like you would support the crowds right to carry. Probably make the point that if they did they could defend themselves against a shooter. But that would also allow a shooter intending to do harm to actually do the harm
Dr. John Lott makes this argument......different shooting threats require different preventative measures...a lone shooter trying to kill the President is completely different from a mass shooter walking into a democrat gun free zone.....you don't use the same measures for both.....
Mass shooters looking for a high body count can be stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun, and by allowing normal, law abiding citizens to carry guns into public spaces, they keep mass shooters from attacking in the first place....
A Presidential Assassin isn't looking to kill lots of people, just one. And the time it would take to shoot the President wouldn't allow armed citizens to react in time...
You have no argument....an attack on Trump is 1 out of 320 million people....while daily crime is stopped...actually stopped by law abiding citizens 2.4 million times a year, according to the CDC..... do you see how you have no argument....
And mass shooters, where law abiding citizens have their legal guns, are stopped with lower body counts by those armed citizens.......
You have no argument....
Ahead of NRA speeches by Trump, Pence hypocritical media get it wrong on gun ban
But there is an obvious and very simple response. Protecting the president and vice president of the United States from assassination is not the same as protecting a group of people from a mass public shooting or protecting you or me from being robbed on a dark street.
First, the president and vice president already have armed Secret Service agents flooding an area and guarding each of them. Local police are also always on hand to help provide security. Ordinary citizens don’t have this kind of protection.
Second, if a shooter has only one big target, the attack might be over with a single shot before gun permit holders have a chance to respond. So having armed NRA members in the audience for the Trump and Pence speeches wouldn’t provide any protection to the president and vice president beyond what the Secret Service and police already provide.
By contrast, mass public shooters are trying to kill as many people as possible. They know that the more people they kill, the more media attention they receive. If the target is protected by a couple of uniformed officers, killers will know to take out the officers first.
Alternatively, mass shooters can move on to an unprotected target. This gives them a strategic advantage that can only be taken away by the presence of concealed handgun permit holders. When that happens, killers don’t know who to attack first – and don’t know who might shoot back.
When you take away the ability of mass public shooters to kill or injure many people, you take away their publicity and their motivation for carrying out these attacks.
There are 17 million permitted concealed handgun holders in the U.S., versus about 650,000 police officers. So permit holders are much more likely to be at the scene of an attack against ordinary citizens.
The media refuse to include any information about how gun-free zones are targeted for mass public shootings. You would never know that 97 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to today have occurred in places where ordinary citizens aren’t allowed to have guns.
Gun permit holders are allowed to carry almost everywhere in right-to-carry states, but the attacks keep occurring in those tiny areas where they can’t protect themselves.
The national media ignore the statements from killers explaining why they pick the targets that they do. The gun control debate would be very different if the news media would mention these facts.
I have a very simple point which you are ignoring but also kind of validating. The right of speech has limitations, you just laid out the justifications for the limitations... that’s fine. But you just proved my point that our rights are limited by laws and regulations.The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by lawGuns are not speed limits...they are a Constitutional Right....you don't say, Hey, let's try not letting Blacks use White waterfountains and see if that works......a Right is not vulnerable to local or state action.
Only with strict cause....and D.C. v Heller has already decided the Right to own and carry a gun for self defense which means local and state laws against it are unConstitutional...
Yes...because everyone lives in that area, and they all have Rights...... but they can't say that only Whites can speak and Blacks can't, just to see how that works out.
The only reason they can have permits is because the people want to use a public space that others may also want to use, and they also have to provide for the police protection and crowd control services on that date...
There is nothing in common with those things and owning and carrying a gun.
You have no point...
You can have lewd photos, and it isn't an offense until you violate another individuals Rights with it....dittos a gun....my carrying a gun is not violating anyone elses Right in a public space.....
You have no argument, you have no point....
You have to register and get a permit to have a protestYelling fire in a theater... yelling bomb on a plane. There’s twoBut, prior restraint is universally illegal. So, your examples suck.The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?
Never has there been a push to infringe on a right guaranteed to millions because of the actions of a few other than the gun-grabbing bullshit. Name one.
Yep...and they are only violations after you commit them, you do not have to register to exercise the ability to talk in a theater, and you can say whatever you want until it impinges on the Rights of another......owning and carrying a gun is no different, and the governemnt can't interfere until your action impacts the Rights of another.
I’m using a publicized and exposed example to show something that you have claimed doesn’t exist. Like I’ve been saying you don’t have stats for those that tried and failed to get a gun to commit a crime and didn’t follow through. Or those who inflicted less damage because they didn’t have access to a more dangerous weapon. Or the crimes that didn’t happen because a venue or area was gun free, like Trumps venue in VegasYou’re either not getting what I’m saying or you are trying to weave around it. The dude wanted to go kill somebody. He wasn’t able to do so because he wasn’t able to walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s a win for the regulation that prevented him from getting the gun. Copy and paste as much as you want but you can’t deny that factI have a great argument with Yrump that you keep dodging. Your comparing to mass shooters and I’m speaking to regulations that prevented the man from buying a gun (that worked) and the venue being a gun free zone which prevented guns from going in.True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.
The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.
Again.... 1 situation out of 320 million people.....
And 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.....where law abiding people can't carry guns, and where time is of the essence in stopping a mass shooter......you have no argument with Trump..... of all the mass shootings, the ones with the lowest amount of casualties are the ones with a law abiding citizen on site with a gun.......
It sounds to me like you would support the crowds right to carry. Probably make the point that if they did they could defend themselves against a shooter. But that would also allow a shooter intending to do harm to actually do the harm
Dr. John Lott makes this argument......different shooting threats require different preventative measures...a lone shooter trying to kill the President is completely different from a mass shooter walking into a democrat gun free zone.....you don't use the same measures for both.....
Mass shooters looking for a high body count can be stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun, and by allowing normal, law abiding citizens to carry guns into public spaces, they keep mass shooters from attacking in the first place....
A Presidential Assassin isn't looking to kill lots of people, just one. And the time it would take to shoot the President wouldn't allow armed citizens to react in time...
You have no argument....an attack on Trump is 1 out of 320 million people....while daily crime is stopped...actually stopped by law abiding citizens 2.4 million times a year, according to the CDC..... do you see how you have no argument....
And mass shooters, where law abiding citizens have their legal guns, are stopped with lower body counts by those armed citizens.......
You have no argument....
Ahead of NRA speeches by Trump, Pence hypocritical media get it wrong on gun ban
But there is an obvious and very simple response. Protecting the president and vice president of the United States from assassination is not the same as protecting a group of people from a mass public shooting or protecting you or me from being robbed on a dark street.
First, the president and vice president already have armed Secret Service agents flooding an area and guarding each of them. Local police are also always on hand to help provide security. Ordinary citizens don’t have this kind of protection.
Second, if a shooter has only one big target, the attack might be over with a single shot before gun permit holders have a chance to respond. So having armed NRA members in the audience for the Trump and Pence speeches wouldn’t provide any protection to the president and vice president beyond what the Secret Service and police already provide.
By contrast, mass public shooters are trying to kill as many people as possible. They know that the more people they kill, the more media attention they receive. If the target is protected by a couple of uniformed officers, killers will know to take out the officers first.
Alternatively, mass shooters can move on to an unprotected target. This gives them a strategic advantage that can only be taken away by the presence of concealed handgun permit holders. When that happens, killers don’t know who to attack first – and don’t know who might shoot back.
When you take away the ability of mass public shooters to kill or injure many people, you take away their publicity and their motivation for carrying out these attacks.
There are 17 million permitted concealed handgun holders in the U.S., versus about 650,000 police officers. So permit holders are much more likely to be at the scene of an attack against ordinary citizens.
The media refuse to include any information about how gun-free zones are targeted for mass public shootings. You would never know that 97 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to today have occurred in places where ordinary citizens aren’t allowed to have guns.
Gun permit holders are allowed to carry almost everywhere in right-to-carry states, but the attacks keep occurring in those tiny areas where they can’t protect themselves.
The national media ignore the statements from killers explaining why they pick the targets that they do. The gun control debate would be very different if the news media would mention these facts.
It isn't a fact.....you are trying to use an extreme example to make a general point...and you can't.
We can debate the reasons and justifications all you want... I was making the simple point that we have laws, regulations and limitations on all our rights. It’s not just limited to the second amendment nor is it unconstitutional to make regulations as long as they are justifiedI have a very simple point which you are ignoring but also kind of validating. The right of speech has limitations, you just laid out the justifications for the limitations... that’s fine. But you just proved my point that our rights are limited by laws and regulations.The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?Rights are absolutely subject to limitations and regulation. Every one of our rights are regulated by law
Only with strict cause....and D.C. v Heller has already decided the Right to own and carry a gun for self defense which means local and state laws against it are unConstitutional...
Yes...because everyone lives in that area, and they all have Rights...... but they can't say that only Whites can speak and Blacks can't, just to see how that works out.
The only reason they can have permits is because the people want to use a public space that others may also want to use, and they also have to provide for the police protection and crowd control services on that date...
There is nothing in common with those things and owning and carrying a gun.
You have no point...
You can have lewd photos, and it isn't an offense until you violate another individuals Rights with it....dittos a gun....my carrying a gun is not violating anyone elses Right in a public space.....
You have no argument, you have no point....
They are limited only when they conflict with the Rights of another person....owning and carrying a gun doesn't even come close...using a gun to commit a crime does.....but you have to violate the Rights of another before action is taken.
That's different. You are asking to potentially block traffic or invite a violent response from the opposition. They are not limiting what you say. You are giving them time to prepare for your demonstration.You have to register and get a permit to have a protest
But, what we don't have is stripping or limiting of those rights solely based on the actions of a few. A preemptive approach violates rights. There is no other way around it.We can debate the reasons and justifications all you want... I was making the simple point that we have laws, regulations and limitations on all our rights. It’s not just limited to the second amendment nor is it unconstitutional to make regulations as long as they are justified
I’m not saying they are the same, I’m saying they are laws and regulations that limits ones rights. Y’all keep trying to justify them and explain the difference but my point. Is very simple... we have limitations and regulations on all of our rights.That's different. You are asking to potentially block traffic or invite a violent response from the opposition. They are not limiting what you say. You are giving them time to prepare for your demonstration.You have to register and get a permit to have a protest
Walking around with a gun is not a violation of the rights of another. Whipping out your gun and pointing it at people is not shooting them, but what are you doing?
See the difference?
You have to register and get a permit to have a protestYelling fire in a theater... yelling bomb on a plane. There’s twoBut, prior restraint is universally illegal. So, your examples suck.The constitution also grants us the right of free speech yet a neighborhood can limit that right by instituting a noise cerfew after midnight if they so decide. That’s not strict cause and it is also a limitation of the people rights. They can also require permits for protests, They Can also restrict lewd photos, language and images from being displayed in various forums. Do I need to keep going or do you get the point?
Never has there been a push to infringe on a right guaranteed to millions because of the actions of a few other than the gun-grabbing bullshit. Name one.
Yep...and they are only violations after you commit them, you do not have to register to exercise the ability to talk in a theater, and you can say whatever you want until it impinges on the Rights of another......owning and carrying a gun is no different, and the governemnt can't interfere until your action impacts the Rights of another.
None of which should strip millions of their rights based on the actions of a few.I’m not saying they are the same, I’m saying they are laws and regulations that limits ones rights. Y’all keep trying to justify them and explain the difference but my point. Is very simple... we have limitations and regulations on all of our rights.
Where did psycho neighbor Ray get $1.5 million dollars to purchase a Tomahawk? We're not even talking about the launching system. Just the missile itself?Many people consider a crazy person with a gun a public safety issue so they want to prevent it. Some people feel a little uneasy about psycho neighbor Ray owning a pair of tomahawk middles and having and arsenal of explosives along with his machine guns so they want to make those weapons are highly restricted. This isn’t rocket science, I know y’all understand the situation, youre just too hard headed to acknowledge it and too hell bend to demonize the “gun grabbers” as you call them.
Are you for real? So would you think it fine for a diagnosed psychopath with extreme mental disorders to get a gun? He is an American citizen after all so you either need to be cool with him having a gun or you need to strip his god given right. What would you do?None of which should strip millions of their rights based on the actions of a few.I’m not saying they are the same, I’m saying they are laws and regulations that limits ones rights. Y’all keep trying to justify them and explain the difference but my point. Is very simple... we have limitations and regulations on all of our rights.
Where did psycho neighbor Ray get $1.5 million dollars to purchase a Tomahawk? We're not even talking about the launching system. Just the missile itself?Many people consider a crazy person with a gun a public safety issue so they want to prevent it. Some people feel a little uneasy about psycho neighbor Ray owning a pair of tomahawk middles and having and arsenal of explosives along with his machine guns so they want to make those weapons are highly restricted. This isn’t rocket science, I know y’all understand the situation, youre just too hard headed to acknowledge it and too hell bend to demonize the “gun grabbers” as you call them.
Thanks to the Hughes Amendment, machine guns owned by civilians is also financially impossible for a wacky neighbor named Ray.
Those scenarios are way over the top.
You're not asking for laws against owning cruise missiles in a suburban housing development. You're ilk is pushing to take away a civilian rifle that is RARELY used in crime. You're also trying to make the magazine capacity well below the current standard of 30 rounds.
Stop with the straw men.
I’m not using straw men I’m using extreme examples to highlight the guts of my point. There is a reason why crazy Ray can’t have an arsenal like that and it is a good reason.Where did psycho neighbor Ray get $1.5 million dollars to purchase a Tomahawk? We're not even talking about the launching system. Just the missile itself?Many people consider a crazy person with a gun a public safety issue so they want to prevent it. Some people feel a little uneasy about psycho neighbor Ray owning a pair of tomahawk middles and having and arsenal of explosives along with his machine guns so they want to make those weapons are highly restricted. This isn’t rocket science, I know y’all understand the situation, youre just too hard headed to acknowledge it and too hell bend to demonize the “gun grabbers” as you call them.
Thanks to the Hughes Amendment, machine guns owned by civilians is also financially impossible for a wacky neighbor named Ray.
Those scenarios are way over the top.
You're not asking for laws against owning cruise missiles in a suburban housing development. You're ilk is pushing to take away a civilian rifle that is RARELY used in crime. You're also trying to make the magazine capacity well below the current standard of 30 rounds.
Stop with the straw men.
Nobody is talking about missiles. You're talking about removing a very popular civilian sporting rifle and/or reducing the magazine capacity to below the standard 30 rounds.I’m not using straw men I’m using extreme examples to highlight the guts of my point. There is a reason why crazy Ray can’t have an arsenal like that and it is a good reason.
The right exists with or without the Constitution. Assume I agree that rights have restrictions. The 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits the Federal Government from regulating firearms, correct?We can drill down to the issues on the table regarding the AK and the mags if you’d like, but I’ve been talking with people on this board that think any restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights is unconstitutional which is why I make the grandiose examples.
Nobody is talking about missiles. You're talking about removing a very popular civilian sporting rifle and/or reducing the magazine capacity to below the standard 30 rounds.I’m not using straw men I’m using extreme examples to highlight the guts of my point. There is a reason why crazy Ray can’t have an arsenal like that and it is a good reason.
If you want to ban missiles, your opposition will be very small.
The right exists with or without the Constitution. Assume I agree that rights have restrictions. The 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits the Federal Government from regulating firearms, correct?We can drill down to the issues on the table regarding the AK and the mags if you’d like, but I’ve been talking with people on this board that think any restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights is unconstitutional which is why I make the grandiose examples.
I believe the founders intended the term to mean any weapon of any kind, but if you want to limit the meaning of "arms" to that which can be carried and used by an individual, I am not opposed to it.Missiles would not fall under the term "arms"
Like with other areas of the constitution it is open to interpretation. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That can be viewed in many ways? So it would be unconstitutional to ban citizens from owning guns. But what about machine guns? What about crazy citizens? Those are both regulated for the public safety, do you think both of this restrictions are unconstitutional and should be eliminated?Nobody is talking about missiles. You're talking about removing a very popular civilian sporting rifle and/or reducing the magazine capacity to below the standard 30 rounds.I’m not using straw men I’m using extreme examples to highlight the guts of my point. There is a reason why crazy Ray can’t have an arsenal like that and it is a good reason.
If you want to ban missiles, your opposition will be very small.
The right exists with or without the Constitution. Assume I agree that rights have restrictions. The 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits the Federal Government from regulating firearms, correct?We can drill down to the issues on the table regarding the AK and the mags if you’d like, but I’ve been talking with people on this board that think any restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights is unconstitutional which is why I make the grandiose examples.
That’s an interesting idea but wow, think of the delema that say a war vet would go through... say he suffers from PTSD and other mental illnesses and has to decide to give up his guns or forgo treatment... that’s a hell of a decision for a struggling person to make.Where did psycho neighbor Ray get $1.5 million dollars to purchase a Tomahawk? We're not even talking about the launching system. Just the missile itself?Many people consider a crazy person with a gun a public safety issue so they want to prevent it. Some people feel a little uneasy about psycho neighbor Ray owning a pair of tomahawk middles and having and arsenal of explosives along with his machine guns so they want to make those weapons are highly restricted. This isn’t rocket science, I know y’all understand the situation, youre just too hard headed to acknowledge it and too hell bend to demonize the “gun grabbers” as you call them.
Thanks to the Hughes Amendment, machine guns owned by civilians is also financially impossible for a wacky neighbor named Ray.
Those scenarios are way over the top.
You're not asking for laws against owning cruise missiles in a suburban housing development. You're ilk is pushing to take away a civilian rifle that is RARELY used in crime. You're also trying to make the magazine capacity well below the current standard of 30 rounds.
Stop with the straw men.
What Slade is talking about is restricting people with "diminished capacity" from a right. I can't altogether dismiss this argument except it would establish a really bad precedent.
It's been tried with the right to vote and failed. It's been tried with public access and resulted in the American's with Disability Act. Some tried to use it with Same Sex Marriage.
It's a really slippery slope that really wouldn't amount to much.
Given that, I would agree that certain people with certain mental illnesses who decide to take, as a course of treatment, a drug that causes violent behavior should certainly be limited to this right, as well as many others. But I think the point would be, even in this, that one of the qualifications would be the patients agreement that, by taking these drugs they voluntarily give up those rights.
