Bring your guns

[BULLDOG]

Well, Jones, they are not all of like mind. Kaz, for example, is adamantly opposed to gun free zones...except when he isn't.....

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

A school board is an elected government body. That's what I said, if you'd like to address that.

How do you determine the will of the people?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

A school board is an elected government body. That's what I said, if you'd like to address that.

How do you determine the will of the people?

Ask Trump what he thinks, and then do the opposite.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, Jones, they are not all of like mind. Kaz, for example, is adamantly opposed to gun free zones...except when he isn't.....

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

A school board is an elected government body. That's what I said, if you'd like to address that.

An elected government body reflecting – and representing – the will of the people in our representative democracy, a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

And the will of the people is subject to the rule of law – the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

When the people err and enact measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, those adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, and have un-Constitutional measures invalidated.

As long as the people acting through their elected representatives comport with the Constitution and its case law, the measures they pass are valid and enforceable – such as prohibiting firearms in a given venue, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Centinel]

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

A school board is an elected government body. That's what I said, if you'd like to address that.

An elected government body reflecting – and representing – the will of the people in our representative democracy, a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

And the will of the people is subject to the rule of law – the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

When the people err and enact measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, those adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, and have un-Constitutional measures invalidated.

As long as the people acting through their elected representatives comport with the Constitution and its case law, the measures they pass are valid and enforceable – such as prohibiting firearms in a given venue, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Yes, so it's government deciding, not individual citizens deciding.

 

[kaz]

Well, Jones, they are not all of like mind. Kaz, for example, is adamantly opposed to gun free zones...except when he isn't.....

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

I wouldn't dream of getting between you and Oldlady's argument!

I'm for "gun free zones" when they are chosen by the choice of private citizens. I am against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

 

[kaz]

Well, Jones, they are not all of like mind. Kaz, for example, is adamantly opposed to gun free zones...except when he isn't.....

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So you are opposed to the convention being a gun free zone? More than 50,000 people have already signed a petition to stop that particular gun grab.

Strawman, I said it's the choice of the Republican party. Seems like a simple statement, how stupid are you?

 

[kaz]

Well, Jones, they are not all of like mind. Kaz, for example, is adamantly opposed to gun free zones...except when he isn't.....

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

Shooters continually run to schools for that reason, the targets don't shoot back

 

[kaz]

Well, Jones, they are not all of like mind. Kaz, for example, is adamantly opposed to gun free zones...except when he isn't.....

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

Tyranny of the majority is your preferred solution. However, in that statement, what does what you said have to do with it? Government can't take away our right to defend ourselves, where does government schools being government bring that statement into relevance exactly?

 

[kaz]

Well, Jones, they are not all of like mind. Kaz, for example, is adamantly opposed to gun free zones...except when he isn't.....

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

When government acts at the behest of the people, where the people express their will through their elected representatives, all the people have indeed authorized the creation of ‘gun free zones.’

And when the people act through their elected representatives to prohibit firearms in a given venue, they act in accordance with the Second Amendment and its case law:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I like you quoting government employees saying government can take away our right to protect ourselves as if that's an argument. Wow, government said they can, I'm convinced now!

What about free speech, can government decide what zones that does and doesn't apply? Can they remove free speech from public grounds by declaring it a restricted speech zone? Or are rights in the Bill of Rights separate and not equal?

 

[kaz]

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

A school board is an elected government body. That's what I said, if you'd like to address that.

How do you determine the will of the people?

Begging the question. Rights in the Bill of Rights are not subject to the "will of the people" in that they aren't subject to your beloved tyranny of the majority. The will of the people was that they are inalienable rights. You haven't provided any relevance to the question

 

[kaz]

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

A school board is an elected government body. That's what I said, if you'd like to address that.

An elected government body reflecting – and representing – the will of the people in our representative democracy, a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

And the will of the people is subject to the rule of law – the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

When the people err and enact measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, those adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, and have un-Constitutional measures invalidated.

As long as the people acting through their elected representatives comport with the Constitution and its case law, the measures they pass are valid and enforceable – such as prohibiting firearms in a given venue, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

So as long as case law says the rights in the Constitution aren't really rights, the majority can go ahead and tyranny away! The rationalization of despots and dictators!

 

[Iceweasel]

Secret services word is law ? Who knew ! ?

Or maybe the GOP is putting it on them to avoid the hypocrisy of them banning guns at the convention .

There's no hypocrisy. It's just that the issue is too big for you. The SS very definitely lays down the law where they are tasked to attend.

I thought the law was the law. You're going to let them take away your 2nd amendment rights? I'm sure ISIS will appreciate the GUN FREE ZONE

Huh? A convention, business or home owner can make any rule regarding limiting weapons, you don't have any right to over ride theirs. Libs know so much that isn't true.

Just heard this morning the Texas convention will allow OC. I'm not sure how the SS feels about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, Jones, they are not all of like mind. Kaz, for example, is adamantly opposed to gun free zones...except when he isn't.....

I'm for gun free zones when they are chosen by free choice of private citizens. I'm against them when they are dictated by government. Which part of that confuses you exactly?

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

Tyranny of the majority is your preferred solution. However, in that statement, what does what you said have to do with it? Government can't take away our right to defend ourselves, where does government schools being government bring that statement into relevance exactly?

Tyranny of of the majority?

What kind of government can you have if between the majority and the minority,

neither is allowed to win the argument and make policy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Secret Service shot it down. So it's a non issue. A liberal could easily sneak in.

So you admit that gun free zones are safer than gun free for all zones.

If you have a SS team there.

The NRA doesn't want gun free zones anywhere.

 

[Wilbur Right]

What kind of government can you have if between the majority and the minority,

neither is allowed to win the argument and make policy?

Dysfunctional?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if a school board decides that the schools in that district will be gun free zones,

is that 'private citizens' deciding? Or government 'dictating'?

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

A school board is an elected government body. That's what I said, if you'd like to address that.

An elected government body reflecting – and representing – the will of the people in our representative democracy, a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

And the will of the people is subject to the rule of law – the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

When the people err and enact measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, those adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, and have un-Constitutional measures invalidated.

As long as the people acting through their elected representatives comport with the Constitution and its case law, the measures they pass are valid and enforceable – such as prohibiting firearms in a given venue, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

So as long as case law says the rights in the Constitution aren't really rights, the majority can go ahead and tyranny away! The rationalization of despots and dictators!

All rights are established and protected by the majority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What kind of government can you have if between the majority and the minority,

neither is allowed to win the argument and make policy?

Dysfunctional?

Non-functional. One day these RWnuts are complaining about tyranny of the majority,

the next day they're complaining about 9 'unelected' judges deciding issues on the SCOTUS.

And oddly, don't be shocked, but their complaining shifts from one to the other of the above solely on whether or not they liked the outcome. Principles having nothing to do with it.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Secret Service shot it down. So it's a non issue. A liberal could easily sneak in.

So you admit that gun free zones are safer than gun free for all zones.

If you have a SS team there.

The NRA doesn't want gun free zones anywhere.

You're a liar. It's what you do.

 

[Iceweasel]

Government dictating. The school board is an elected government body.

So if elected officials don't represent the people, how do you determine what the people want? Whoever is loudest?

A school board is an elected government body. That's what I said, if you'd like to address that.

An elected government body reflecting – and representing – the will of the people in our representative democracy, a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

And the will of the people is subject to the rule of law – the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

When the people err and enact measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, those adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, and have un-Constitutional measures invalidated.

As long as the people acting through their elected representatives comport with the Constitution and its case law, the measures they pass are valid and enforceable – such as prohibiting firearms in a given venue, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

So as long as case law says the rights in the Constitution aren't really rights, the majority can go ahead and tyranny away! The rationalization of despots and dictators!

All rights are established and protected by the majority.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. That's the Constitution, not majority.

 

[Iceweasel]

What kind of government can you have if between the majority and the minority,

neither is allowed to win the argument and make policy?

Dysfunctional?

Non-functional. One day these RWnuts are complaining about tyranny of the majority,

the next day they're complaining about 9 'unelected' judges deciding issues on the SCOTUS.

And oddly, don't be shocked, but their complaining shifts from one to the other of the above solely on whether or not they liked the outcome. Principles having nothing to do with it.

Can you connect those dots. It made no sense whatsoever.