Big Gun Reform Idea From 2020 Democrats

[MAGAman]

But the Democrats say that asking for an ID is racist.
Why are the Democrats so racist?

Well said.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

There are many differences.

First of all, this bill would require people to be fingerprinted to purchase a firearm. That's not required with voter-id. Then it says you must take lessons to get this permit of theirs. We don't have classes to vote with voter-id. You simply bring reliable proof of who you are and get one.

The biggest difference however is that Voter-Id only provides proof of who you are when you do vote, not to keep track of you and what you own.

I would just love to see the reaction by the Democrats if we on the right said we're creating a law that makes you get a criminal background check before being allowed to vote.

Starting to see the differences now???

Background checks don't require fingerprints now. There isn't much reason they will any time soon. Permits aren't required in very many states either. Since paperwork for current background checks are destroyed by law, I don' see much chance of keeping track of a person who buys a gun anyway. You got anything else? Your complaints just don't hold up. I haven't looked at the particular bill you mention, and it might have some objectionable things in it, but universal background checks can easily be enacted without the things you just complained about.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's this simple...Gun laws do not work. Criminals get guns illegally.
Question #1... If a thug has murder or mayhem in their heart, will a silly gun law stop them from committing a gun crime?
Question #2...If a thug is convicted and hanged for a violent gun offense, will this stop them from committing another gun crime?

It's this simple...Rape laws do not work. Criminals will rape illegally.
Question #1... If a rapist has rape in their heart, will a silly rape law stop them from committing a rape crime?
Question #2...If a rapist is convicted and hanged for a violent rape offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another rape crime?

It's this simple...Murder laws do not work. Criminals will murder illegally.
Question #1... If a murderer has murder in their heart, will a silly murder law stop them from committing a murder crime?
Question #2...If a murderer is convicted and hanged for a violent murder offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another murder crime?

I could go through all the other laws that aren't 100% effective, but I think you get the point. Are all those other laws useless too?​

There are no laws that can stop people from doing anything, including mass murders. Take away guns, U-Hauls would be the new weapon of mass destruction.

But laws and penalties can stop some people from doing crimes. For instance, let's say they made rape legal. Do you suppose there would be more rapes, less rapes, or about the same?

I'm not sure how many people could be murdered with a U-Haul in a school in just a few minutes. Has that ever happened before?

I didn't know we were talking just about schools. I thought we were talking about mass murders period.

Now if a killer has children in mind, a truck can mow down dozens of kids that are walking home on the sidewalk in groups after school. The Dayton shooting in my state was done outside. The killer waited for all the bars to close where he knew groups of people would be walking and likely not armed since it's against the law to consume alcohol and carry a weapon in this state. He could have done more harm with a truck than a gun. I would assume the reason he didn't is because he didn't expect such a quick response by our wonderful police.

You're just getting silly now. If U-hauls were as effective at killing people as guns are, the military would have a U-Haul brigade. Try to not be so childish.

 

[BULLDOG]

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

Hang leftist turds like you. Works for me .

Of course it does, but you're an ass hole who can't point out where I'm wrong.

Of course I can, it's right around Amendment 2, buttnugget.

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

Constitution of the United States - We the People

I never said that wasn't there. I just said that section has no more force or importance than our constitutionally protected right to vote. If you can show where it does, I would like to see it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's this simple...Gun laws do not work. Criminals get guns illegally.
Question #1... If a thug has murder or mayhem in their heart, will a silly gun law stop them from committing a gun crime?
Question #2...If a thug is convicted and hanged for a violent gun offense, will this stop them from committing another gun crime?

It's this simple...Rape laws do not work. Criminals will rape illegally.
Question #1... If a rapist has rape in their heart, will a silly rape law stop them from committing a rape crime?
Question #2...If a rapist is convicted and hanged for a violent rape offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another rape crime?

It's this simple...Murder laws do not work. Criminals will murder illegally.
Question #1... If a murderer has murder in their heart, will a silly murder law stop them from committing a murder crime?
Question #2...If a murderer is convicted and hanged for a violent murder offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another murder crime?

I could go through all the other laws that aren't 100% effective, but I think you get the point. Are all those other laws useless too?​

There are no laws that can stop people from doing anything, including mass murders. Take away guns, U-Hauls would be the new weapon of mass destruction.

But laws and penalties can stop some people from doing crimes. For instance, let's say they made rape legal. Do you suppose there would be more rapes, less rapes, or about the same?

I'm not sure how many people could be murdered with a U-Haul in a school in just a few minutes. Has that ever happened before?

I didn't know we were talking just about schools. I thought we were talking about mass murders period.

Now if a killer has children in mind, a truck can mow down dozens of kids that are walking home on the sidewalk in groups after school. The Dayton shooting in my state was done outside. The killer waited for all the bars to close where he knew groups of people would be walking and likely not armed since it's against the law to consume alcohol and carry a weapon in this state. He could have done more harm with a truck than a gun. I would assume the reason he didn't is because he didn't expect such a quick response by our wonderful police.

You're just getting silly now. If U-hauls were as effective at killing people as guns are, the military would have a U-Haul brigade. Try to not be so childish.

Be so childish? You should get out of the basement once in a while.

Toronto is the most recent of many deliberate attacks involving vehicles

A Short History of Vehicles Being Used as Deadly Weapons

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

There are many differences.

First of all, this bill would require people to be fingerprinted to purchase a firearm. That's not required with voter-id. Then it says you must take lessons to get this permit of theirs. We don't have classes to vote with voter-id. You simply bring reliable proof of who you are and get one.

The biggest difference however is that Voter-Id only provides proof of who you are when you do vote, not to keep track of you and what you own.

I would just love to see the reaction by the Democrats if we on the right said we're creating a law that makes you get a criminal background check before being allowed to vote.

Starting to see the differences now???

Background checks don't require fingerprints now. There isn't much reason they will any time soon. Permits aren't required in very many states either. Since paperwork for current background checks are destroyed by law, I don' see much chance of keeping track of a person who buys a gun anyway. You got anything else? Your complaints just don't hold up. I haven't looked at the particular bill you mention, and it might have some objectionable things in it, but universal background checks can easily be enacted without the things you just complained about.

Great, so if we try to do that with voting, you on the left would have no problem with that?

For crying out loud, your comrades have been complaining how discriminatory it was obtaining a simple ID. Now you're going to tell me the left would have no problem with background checks and fingerprinting to vote? How many times have they taken the state to court just for ID's?????

 

[BULLDOG]

It's this simple...Rape laws do not work. Criminals will rape illegally.
Question #1... If a rapist has rape in their heart, will a silly rape law stop them from committing a rape crime?
Question #2...If a rapist is convicted and hanged for a violent rape offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another rape crime?

It's this simple...Murder laws do not work. Criminals will murder illegally.
Question #1... If a murderer has murder in their heart, will a silly murder law stop them from committing a murder crime?
Question #2...If a murderer is convicted and hanged for a violent murder offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another murder crime?

I could go through all the other laws that aren't 100% effective, but I think you get the point. Are all those other laws useless too?​

There are no laws that can stop people from doing anything, including mass murders. Take away guns, U-Hauls would be the new weapon of mass destruction.

But laws and penalties can stop some people from doing crimes. For instance, let's say they made rape legal. Do you suppose there would be more rapes, less rapes, or about the same?

I'm not sure how many people could be murdered with a U-Haul in a school in just a few minutes. Has that ever happened before?

I didn't know we were talking just about schools. I thought we were talking about mass murders period.

Now if a killer has children in mind, a truck can mow down dozens of kids that are walking home on the sidewalk in groups after school. The Dayton shooting in my state was done outside. The killer waited for all the bars to close where he knew groups of people would be walking and likely not armed since it's against the law to consume alcohol and carry a weapon in this state. He could have done more harm with a truck than a gun. I would assume the reason he didn't is because he didn't expect such a quick response by our wonderful police.

You're just getting silly now. If U-hauls were as effective at killing people as guns are, the military would have a U-Haul brigade. Try to not be so childish.

Be so childish? You should get out of the basement once in a while.

Toronto is the most recent of many deliberate attacks involving vehicles

A Short History of Vehicles Being Used as Deadly Weapons

Still no U-Haul brigade. I wonder why.

 

[BULLDOG]

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

There are many differences.

First of all, this bill would require people to be fingerprinted to purchase a firearm. That's not required with voter-id. Then it says you must take lessons to get this permit of theirs. We don't have classes to vote with voter-id. You simply bring reliable proof of who you are and get one.

The biggest difference however is that Voter-Id only provides proof of who you are when you do vote, not to keep track of you and what you own.

I would just love to see the reaction by the Democrats if we on the right said we're creating a law that makes you get a criminal background check before being allowed to vote.

Starting to see the differences now???

Background checks don't require fingerprints now. There isn't much reason they will any time soon. Permits aren't required in very many states either. Since paperwork for current background checks are destroyed by law, I don' see much chance of keeping track of a person who buys a gun anyway. You got anything else? Your complaints just don't hold up. I haven't looked at the particular bill you mention, and it might have some objectionable things in it, but universal background checks can easily be enacted without the things you just complained about.

Great, so if we try to do that with voting, you on the left would have no problem with that?

For crying out loud, your comrades have been complaining how discriminatory it was obtaining a simple ID. Now you're going to tell me the left would have no problem with background checks and fingerprinting to vote? How many times have they taken the state to court just for ID's?????

I'm just trying to see if you are honest enough to admit your argument can be equally applied to other things, or if you insist it only applies to guns. So which is it? If you insist the constitution prevents rules on gun ownership, you have to admit it prevents rules on voting. Of course that only applies if you have any integrity.

 

[BluesLegend]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

So the idiot Dem's big idea is to make law abiding gun owners...even more law abiding? Brilliant! /sarcasm

 

[Soupnazi630]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

 

[Flash]

[Q


Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.

You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.

 

[BULLDOG]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

 

[Flash]

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic rifles. Nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, pistols, or revolvers...

The 2nd Amendment, as written, RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT.

The technology of the firearm is irrelevant.

The restrictions on the government remain the same, regardless of the firearm.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms.

It FORBIDS government interference in the right to keep and bear arms. PERIOD.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Flash]

Moon Bats don't understand the Constitution just like they don't understand Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or Biology.

The Bill of Rights doesn't spell out what we as citizens are permitted to do, instead it specifically restricts government from certain activities.

First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law..."
Second Amendment, "...shall not be infringed."

On and on, it draws lines that the government cannot cross under any circumstances.

 

[BULLDOG]

[Q


Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.

You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.

OK, so educate me. Show me where in the constitution the right to bear arms is any more important or protected than the right to vote. One right wing idiot even said the right to vote wasn't even in there,

 

[JusticeHammer]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

If you have to ask you're part of the problem.

 

[JusticeHammer]

[Q


Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.

You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.

OK, so educate me. Show me where in the constitution the right to bear arms is any more important or protected than the right to vote. One right wing idiot even said the right to vote wasn't even in there,

"Shall not be infringed" comes to mind.

 

[JusticeHammer]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

It negates something being a right, next!

So you are against requiring ID to vote too, right?

Different and you know it. Illegal aliens don't have the right to vote, American citizens have the right to bear arms. Stop being liberal and learn something.

 

[Flash]

 

[basquebromance]

This is the moment that history will judge us by. This is the moment to stand up to racism and bigotry. This is the moment to create an economy that works for all of us. its time to kick Trump out of the white house in 2020!