Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[2aguy]

The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Actually that is kind of how I feel about voter ID laws and opposition to mail-in ballots.

Voter I.D. simply shows you are you and you get one vote. Mail in voting didn't work in New Jersey..they lost 10,000 ballots through disqualification...and the people who sent them couldn't do them over....like they could if they were at a polling station.....and CBS showed it didn't work as the U.S. postal service lost 3% of the ballots....and about 20,000 that didn't reach the post office in 4 days.......

Won't a background check simply show you are you?

Nope....

Current background checks at gun stores do not register the guns to individuals...only that a sale of that gun was made....this drives anti-gun extremists crazy.

They want to use universal background checks.....checks on every single gun sale, in order to get gun registration. You can't have universal background checks without gun registration...because you need to know who owned the gun, and who bought the gun to confirm a background check actually happened...once you do that, you have the records you need to confiscate guns.

 

[alang1216]

And yes, the democrat party will one day come after cars...but right now they want to ban guns....and to do that they first need to know who has them so they can't be hidden...and to do that, they first need registration....

We know that registration is the 2nd to last step from Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany........you have no leg to stand on. The truth, facts, reality and history show exactly why universal background checks are evil and need to be stopped.

I think the more people like yourself fight the more likely you'll bring about that day.

 

[2aguy]

And yes, the democrat party will one day come after cars...but right now they want to ban guns....and to do that they first need to know who has them so they can't be hidden...and to do that, they first need registration....

We know that registration is the 2nd to last step from Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany........you have no leg to stand on. The truth, facts, reality and history show exactly why universal background checks are evil and need to be stopped.

I think the more people like yourself fight the more likely you'll bring about that day.

Yes....the old....."Give us the gun laws we want today, or we will take your guns away from you. " A few years later..."Give us the gun laws we want today, or we will take your guns away from you." Repeat until there are so many gun laws making criminals out of normal gun owners that confiscation is much, much easier......

Don't threaten us with taking guns away from us as you are telling us "no, we don't want to take your guns away from you....."

 

[alang1216]

And yes, the democrat party will one day come after cars...but right now they want to ban guns....and to do that they first need to know who has them so they can't be hidden...and to do that, they first need registration....

We know that registration is the 2nd to last step from Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany........you have no leg to stand on. The truth, facts, reality and history show exactly why universal background checks are evil and need to be stopped.

I think the more people like yourself fight the more likely you'll bring about that day.

.
Yes....the old....."Give us the gun laws we want today, or we will take your guns away from you. " A few years later..."Give us the gun laws we want today, or we will take your guns away from you." Repeat until there are so many gun laws making criminals out of normal gun owners that confiscation is much, much easier......

Don't threaten us with taking guns away from us as you are telling us "no, we don't want to take your guns away from you....."

Not a threat, a caution.

 

[2aguy]

And yes, the democrat party will one day come after cars...but right now they want to ban guns....and to do that they first need to know who has them so they can't be hidden...and to do that, they first need registration....

We know that registration is the 2nd to last step from Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany........you have no leg to stand on. The truth, facts, reality and history show exactly why universal background checks are evil and need to be stopped.

I think the more people like yourself fight the more likely you'll bring about that day.

.
Yes....the old....."Give us the gun laws we want today, or we will take your guns away from you. " A few years later..."Give us the gun laws we want today, or we will take your guns away from you." Repeat until there are so many gun laws making criminals out of normal gun owners that confiscation is much, much easier......

Don't threaten us with taking guns away from us as you are telling us "no, we don't want to take your guns away from you....."

Not a threat, a caution.

Threat......you aren't the only one making it.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

Yeah, because I have routinely seen 10 year olds buying machine guns at a 711. We better amend the constitution.... yup.... seems like a legit claim.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

well anything before the age of majority has been found constitutional, we restrict things like drinking, and voting, and even driving before that, so there is precedent.

And I am not so much a purist as saying everyone needs a machine gun. My issue is infringement of even the most basic weapons by certain cities.

In NYC you need to spend 3-6 months and $500 or so just to get a permit to keep a revolver in your house. That's infringement.

Ok that’s a fair stance to take. There are many in this board that can even admit that the smallest of regulations is lawful and effective.

Like any right, the 2nd isn't absolute, however, do you agree that NYC's stance is infringement?

Yes of course it is infringement, just as any regulation can be called infringement. but the question is... we’re the laws imposed in a lawful way By the states and per the constitution? There is a process for states to go through and a system set up to appeal laws that some may consider unconstitutional.

Dodge. Again, I ask the question, based on YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment are NYC's laws as I described above unconstitutional or not?

The problem with the process is local judges who don't care about constitutional rights, and just decide as they are supposed to.

I wasn’t meaning to dodge, thought I was pretty direct. Yes NYC laws infringe as do a u law but they passed those laws in a constitutional way.

I think you are confusing the legislative process for constitutionality. If a State passes a law banning Catholicism is that Constitutional?

That depends on what the Supreme Court says about it

The SC does not create or grant rights, it is supposed to make the government protect and respect rights.

And btw going to the SC is appeal to authority in this case, and a dodge.

It’s not a dodge it’s the constitutional process That we are supposed to use to challenge laws that people consider inappropriate. It’s at the foundation of our government. Checks and balances

But you refuse to say yourself if you think a State banning Catholicism is unconstitutional.

Answer the question.

If a state banned Catholicism I’d support challenging it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court found it constitutional then so be it. It depends on the specifics though. If I was passionate enough about the subject I’d probably keep appealing

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

Yeah, because I have routinely seen 10 year olds buying machine guns at a 711. We better amend the constitution.... yup.... seems like a legit claim.

10 year olds aren’t allowed to buy guns and 711 isn’t allowed to sell them to just anybody. there are laws preventing that. I’m asking if those laws should be repealed and those actions permitted. Flash says yes. What about you?

 

[Andylusion]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

well anything before the age of majority has been found constitutional, we restrict things like drinking, and voting, and even driving before that, so there is precedent.

And I am not so much a purist as saying everyone needs a machine gun. My issue is infringement of even the most basic weapons by certain cities.

In NYC you need to spend 3-6 months and $500 or so just to get a permit to keep a revolver in your house. That's infringement.

Ok that’s a fair stance to take. There are many in this board that can even admit that the smallest of regulations is lawful and effective.

Like any right, the 2nd isn't absolute, however, do you agree that NYC's stance is infringement?

Yes of course it is infringement, just as any regulation can be called infringement. but the question is... we’re the laws imposed in a lawful way By the states and per the constitution? There is a process for states to go through and a system set up to appeal laws that some may consider unconstitutional.

Dodge. Again, I ask the question, based on YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment are NYC's laws as I described above unconstitutional or not?

The problem with the process is local judges who don't care about constitutional rights, and just decide as they are supposed to.

I wasn’t meaning to dodge, thought I was pretty direct. Yes NYC laws infringe as do a u law but they passed those laws in a constitutional way.

I think you are confusing the legislative process for constitutionality. If a State passes a law banning Catholicism is that Constitutional?

That depends on what the Supreme Court says about it

The SC does not create or grant rights, it is supposed to make the government protect and respect rights.

And btw going to the SC is appeal to authority in this case, and a dodge.

It’s not a dodge it’s the constitutional process That we are supposed to use to challenge laws that people consider inappropriate. It’s at the foundation of our government. Checks and balances

But you refuse to say yourself if you think a State banning Catholicism is unconstitutional.

Answer the question.

If a state banned Catholicism I’d support challenging it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court found it constitutional then so be it. It depends on the specifics though. If I was passionate enough about the subject I’d probably keep appealing

If the Supreme Court found it to be constitutional, you would support that?

That is grounds for dissolving the Union. The only reason this country even exists, was because people oppressed for their religious views came here to have a nation that didn't oppress different views (contrary to cancel culture).

If you can support that, simply because the USSC said so.... then the nation is a failure, and we do need to break it up.

 

[BlueGin]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

My god, in all this pandemic disaster, 2/3rds of states voted to hold a Constitutional convention and then the 2nd Amendment was revoked???
Why weren't we told? Why wasn't the media all over this?
Nothing in this paragraph is anything new and has been stated across multiple bills introduced in the House.
Nothing in this paragraph infringes upon a law abiding citizens right to own and operate a firearm.
A lot of it is just common sense. Especially securing a firearm in your home. We don't need legislation for that. You should be doing that as a matter of course.

You don't understand that the filthy ass Democrats have a plan to do away with the Second Amendment by simply infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms one oppressive law at a time.

It will continue until the Supremes tell the jackasses to knock it off and then the Democrats will ignore it just like they did with Heller..

Terrible platform that infringes upon the right. All Americans should reject it.

The gun-nutters like you are doing the gun debate no favors by making their arguments all a bunch of scare tactics divorced from reality. It's like trying to have a discussion on extraterrestrial life with a UFO nut wearing a tinfoil hat. Just can't take your phantom fears seriously.

The riots killed the gun debate. Both Democrats and Republicans ran out in mass to buy firearms.

good luck getting them to give them up with your little domestic terrorists running loose burning shit down.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

Yeah, because I have routinely seen 10 year olds buying machine guns at a 711. We better amend the constitution.... yup.... seems like a legit claim.

10 year olds aren’t allowed to buy guns and 711 isn’t allowed to sell them to just anybody. there are laws preventing that. I’m asking if those laws should be repealed and those actions permitted. Flash says yes. What about you?

A 10 year old is not an adult. This is the problem with dumb arguments like this. All legal citizens, should be able to buy any weapon they wish, within the limits of external risk. Obviously you don't want a nuclear bomb in your basement, where you could wipe out half the city.

But as far as guns and such, I have no problem with it anything.

The consitution says the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed, in relation to a millitia. Now a militia was every legal adult. That standard should be maintained.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

well anything before the age of majority has been found constitutional, we restrict things like drinking, and voting, and even driving before that, so there is precedent.

And I am not so much a purist as saying everyone needs a machine gun. My issue is infringement of even the most basic weapons by certain cities.

In NYC you need to spend 3-6 months and $500 or so just to get a permit to keep a revolver in your house. That's infringement.

Ok that’s a fair stance to take. There are many in this board that can even admit that the smallest of regulations is lawful and effective.

Like any right, the 2nd isn't absolute, however, do you agree that NYC's stance is infringement?

Yes of course it is infringement, just as any regulation can be called infringement. but the question is... we’re the laws imposed in a lawful way By the states and per the constitution? There is a process for states to go through and a system set up to appeal laws that some may consider unconstitutional.

Dodge. Again, I ask the question, based on YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment are NYC's laws as I described above unconstitutional or not?

The problem with the process is local judges who don't care about constitutional rights, and just decide as they are supposed to.

I wasn’t meaning to dodge, thought I was pretty direct. Yes NYC laws infringe as do a u law but they passed those laws in a constitutional way.

I think you are confusing the legislative process for constitutionality. If a State passes a law banning Catholicism is that Constitutional?

That depends on what the Supreme Court says about it

The SC does not create or grant rights, it is supposed to make the government protect and respect rights.

And btw going to the SC is appeal to authority in this case, and a dodge.

It’s not a dodge it’s the constitutional process That we are supposed to use to challenge laws that people consider inappropriate. It’s at the foundation of our government. Checks and balances

But you refuse to say yourself if you think a State banning Catholicism is unconstitutional.

Answer the question.

If a state banned Catholicism I’d support challenging it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court found it constitutional then so be it. It depends on the specifics though. If I was passionate enough about the subject I’d probably keep appealing

If the Supreme Court found it to be constitutional, you would support that?

That is grounds for dissolving the Union. The only reason this country even exists, was because people oppressed for their religious views came here to have a nation that didn't oppress different views (contrary to cancel culture).

If you can support that, simply because the USSC said so.... then the nation is a failure, and we do need to break it up.

I support the process of checks and balances that our system is build on. Things that I disagree with can be dealt with in court or through elections. It’s a pretty stupid example to say a state would ban the catholic religion. But I’m playing your game and answering your questions.

 

[Slade3200]

Do

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

Yeah, because I have routinely seen 10 year olds buying machine guns at a 711. We better amend the constitution.... yup.... seems like a legit claim.

10 year olds aren’t allowed to buy guns and 711 isn’t allowed to sell them to just anybody. there are laws preventing that. I’m asking if those laws should be repealed and those actions permitted. Flash says yes. What about you?

A 10 year old is not an adult. This is the problem with dumb arguments like this. All legal citizens, should be able to buy any weapon they wish, within the limits of external risk. Obviously you don't want a nuclear bomb in your basement, where you could wipe out half the city.

But as far as guns and such, I have no problem with it anything.

The consitution says the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed, in relation to a millitia. Now a militia was every legal adult. That standard should be maintained.

does the constitution lay out on age limit for second amendment rights or are you just saying that? Does a 16 year old have the right to protect him/herself with a firearm?

 

[Andylusion]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

well anything before the age of majority has been found constitutional, we restrict things like drinking, and voting, and even driving before that, so there is precedent.

And I am not so much a purist as saying everyone needs a machine gun. My issue is infringement of even the most basic weapons by certain cities.

In NYC you need to spend 3-6 months and $500 or so just to get a permit to keep a revolver in your house. That's infringement.

Ok that’s a fair stance to take. There are many in this board that can even admit that the smallest of regulations is lawful and effective.

Like any right, the 2nd isn't absolute, however, do you agree that NYC's stance is infringement?

Yes of course it is infringement, just as any regulation can be called infringement. but the question is... we’re the laws imposed in a lawful way By the states and per the constitution? There is a process for states to go through and a system set up to appeal laws that some may consider unconstitutional.

Dodge. Again, I ask the question, based on YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment are NYC's laws as I described above unconstitutional or not?

The problem with the process is local judges who don't care about constitutional rights, and just decide as they are supposed to.

I wasn’t meaning to dodge, thought I was pretty direct. Yes NYC laws infringe as do a u law but they passed those laws in a constitutional way.

I think you are confusing the legislative process for constitutionality. If a State passes a law banning Catholicism is that Constitutional?

That depends on what the Supreme Court says about it

The SC does not create or grant rights, it is supposed to make the government protect and respect rights.

And btw going to the SC is appeal to authority in this case, and a dodge.

It’s not a dodge it’s the constitutional process That we are supposed to use to challenge laws that people consider inappropriate. It’s at the foundation of our government. Checks and balances

But you refuse to say yourself if you think a State banning Catholicism is unconstitutional.

Answer the question.

If a state banned Catholicism I’d support challenging it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court found it constitutional then so be it. It depends on the specifics though. If I was passionate enough about the subject I’d probably keep appealing

If the Supreme Court found it to be constitutional, you would support that?

That is grounds for dissolving the Union. The only reason this country even exists, was because people oppressed for their religious views came here to have a nation that didn't oppress different views (contrary to cancel culture).

If you can support that, simply because the USSC said so.... then the nation is a failure, and we do need to break it up.

I support the process of checks and balances that our system is build on. Things that I disagree with can be dealt with in court or through elections. It’s a pretty stupid example to say a state would ban the catholic religion. But I’m playing your game and answering your questions.

I don't. The entire point of a Constitution, is to have certain standards that are sit in stone, and immovable by the whims of culture. Certain fundamental values, that define the entire point and purpose of our country.

One of those things, is religious freedom, which is not up for debate, not subject to 'checks and balance', not up for a vote, and not up for discussion or change.

And the moment you undermine those solid rock standard, you are basically saying that anything can be changed, if everyone decides that it should.

The moment you say if everyone agrees then it should change.... you might as well do away with all rights and all values, because there are always people who want to eliminate rights and values.

You say it's stupid that government would ban Catholicism.... No, I don't. I can see that in the future. I can. Very believable to me.

 

[Andylusion]

Do

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

Yeah, because I have routinely seen 10 year olds buying machine guns at a 711. We better amend the constitution.... yup.... seems like a legit claim.

10 year olds aren’t allowed to buy guns and 711 isn’t allowed to sell them to just anybody. there are laws preventing that. I’m asking if those laws should be repealed and those actions permitted. Flash says yes. What about you?

A 10 year old is not an adult. This is the problem with dumb arguments like this. All legal citizens, should be able to buy any weapon they wish, within the limits of external risk. Obviously you don't want a nuclear bomb in your basement, where you could wipe out half the city.

But as far as guns and such, I have no problem with it anything.

The consitution says the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed, in relation to a millitia. Now a militia was every legal adult. That standard should be maintained.

does the constitution lay out on age limit for second amendment rights or are you just saying that? Does a 16 year old have the right to protect him/herself with a firearm?

Yes, militia is a legal adult. All legal adults. This is why a 10 year old, can't sign for property. You have to have a legal guardian own the responsibility. I would say 18, is the age you are considered a legal adult.

 

[occupied]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

My god, in all this pandemic disaster, 2/3rds of states voted to hold a Constitutional convention and then the 2nd Amendment was revoked???
Why weren't we told? Why wasn't the media all over this?
Nothing in this paragraph is anything new and has been stated across multiple bills introduced in the House.
Nothing in this paragraph infringes upon a law abiding citizens right to own and operate a firearm.
A lot of it is just common sense. Especially securing a firearm in your home. We don't need legislation for that. You should be doing that as a matter of course.

You don't understand that the filthy ass Democrats have a plan to do away with the Second Amendment by simply infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms one oppressive law at a time.

It will continue until the Supremes tell the jackasses to knock it off and then the Democrats will ignore it just like they did with Heller..

Terrible platform that infringes upon the right. All Americans should reject it.

The gun-nutters like you are doing the gun debate no favors by making their arguments all a bunch of scare tactics divorced from reality. It's like trying to have a discussion on extraterrestrial life with a UFO nut wearing a tinfoil hat. Just can't take your phantom fears seriously.

The riots killed the gun debate. Both Democrats and Republicans ran out in mass to buy firearms.

good luck getting them to give them up with your little domestic terrorists running loose burning shit down.

I fully support the right to responsibly own fire firearms. That responsibility should extend to gun politics. If your arguments are all ludicrous conspiracy theories about what might happen the gun lobby has done you a great disservice. Eventually the bullshit will have to walk and you will be left with the truth: You just like shooting guns and they make you feel safer. Just say that and I will quit calling gun nutters a bunch of gullible fools.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

well anything before the age of majority has been found constitutional, we restrict things like drinking, and voting, and even driving before that, so there is precedent.

And I am not so much a purist as saying everyone needs a machine gun. My issue is infringement of even the most basic weapons by certain cities.

In NYC you need to spend 3-6 months and $500 or so just to get a permit to keep a revolver in your house. That's infringement.

Ok that’s a fair stance to take. There are many in this board that can even admit that the smallest of regulations is lawful and effective.

Like any right, the 2nd isn't absolute, however, do you agree that NYC's stance is infringement?

Yes of course it is infringement, just as any regulation can be called infringement. but the question is... we’re the laws imposed in a lawful way By the states and per the constitution? There is a process for states to go through and a system set up to appeal laws that some may consider unconstitutional.

Dodge. Again, I ask the question, based on YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment are NYC's laws as I described above unconstitutional or not?

The problem with the process is local judges who don't care about constitutional rights, and just decide as they are supposed to.

I wasn’t meaning to dodge, thought I was pretty direct. Yes NYC laws infringe as do a u law but they passed those laws in a constitutional way.

I think you are confusing the legislative process for constitutionality. If a State passes a law banning Catholicism is that Constitutional?

That depends on what the Supreme Court says about it

The SC does not create or grant rights, it is supposed to make the government protect and respect rights.

And btw going to the SC is appeal to authority in this case, and a dodge.

It’s not a dodge it’s the constitutional process That we are supposed to use to challenge laws that people consider inappropriate. It’s at the foundation of our government. Checks and balances

But you refuse to say yourself if you think a State banning Catholicism is unconstitutional.

Answer the question.

If a state banned Catholicism I’d support challenging it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court found it constitutional then so be it. It depends on the specifics though. If I was passionate enough about the subject I’d probably keep appealing

If the Supreme Court found it to be constitutional, you would support that?

That is grounds for dissolving the Union. The only reason this country even exists, was because people oppressed for their religious views came here to have a nation that didn't oppress different views (contrary to cancel culture).

If you can support that, simply because the USSC said so.... then the nation is a failure, and we do need to break it up.

I support the process of checks and balances that our system is build on. Things that I disagree with can be dealt with in court or through elections. It’s a pretty stupid example to say a state would ban the catholic religion. But I’m playing your game and answering your questions.

I don't. The entire point of a Constitution, is to have certain standards that are sit in stone, and immovable by the whims of culture. Certain fundamental values, that define the entire point and purpose of our country.

One of those things, is religious freedom, which is not up for debate, not subject to 'checks and balance', not up for a vote, and not up for discussion or change.

And the moment you undermine those solid rock standard, you are basically saying that anything can be changed, if everyone decides that it should.

The moment you say if everyone agrees then it should change.... you might as well do away with all rights and all values, because there are always people who want to eliminate rights and values.

You say it's stupid that government would ban Catholicism.... No, I don't. I can see that in the future. I can. Very believable to me.

That’s total bullshit. What if a particular religion involved Human sacrifice? Then of course it wouldn’t be allowed. These “god given rights” have limits as they can all conflict with the rights of others. Speech is regulated, religion is limited and yes gun ownership is limited. You murder somebody with a gun... sorry you don’t get to keep your gun. Basic stuff. I’m sorry you don’t get it.

 

[Slade3200]

Do

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Dangerous people do not need to be enabled by easy access to tools for killing. I'd rather a crazy guy try and kill people with a knife instead of a machine gun. Get it?

How are we enabling dangerous people easy access? We have 20,000+ gun laws.

What new law do you propose will stop "dangerous" people from acquiring firearms?

I'm not proposing any new laws... I was simply making that point that both the people allowed to buy guns and the guns people are allowed to buy are risk factors and should be considered when setting regulations.

You are confused.

The problem with that is when the filthy Liberals decide who can get firearms and who can't we get massive infringement for everybody on our Constitutional rights. We see it in the Communist states like California and in the cities where the Locals are run by Democrats and have control over guns.

They not only restrict who can have the arms but also what kind of arms and even the ammo that the arms use. A major Constitutional infringement that clearly says should not be infringed.

Liberals ignore the Constitution when it suits their vile and destructive agenda. We see it every day.

How does your explanation show where I’m confused? It sounds like a random rant from an irrational thinker who wants no regulation on firearms

You are confused because you don't understand that we can't trust Liberals to protect our right to keep and bear arms. They just don't have it in them to do because their agenda is to do away with that right. They have even said so.

What Liberals call reasonable is always unreasonable.

Have those acts oppressed you or prevented you from getting a gun? Whats your problem with those laws and what exactly did you compromise?

You wanna hear something funny?

I don't own any firearms.

But the Constitution is pretty clear. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "the government can take away certain weapons and ammunition".

No, really. Have you read it?

Same here. Also, I've never been arrested, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury, or due process.

So its your point of view that banning machine guns and not selling them to say a 10 year old in a 711 is unconstitutional?

I own 12 guns BTW

Yeah, because I have routinely seen 10 year olds buying machine guns at a 711. We better amend the constitution.... yup.... seems like a legit claim.

10 year olds aren’t allowed to buy guns and 711 isn’t allowed to sell them to just anybody. there are laws preventing that. I’m asking if those laws should be repealed and those actions permitted. Flash says yes. What about you?

A 10 year old is not an adult. This is the problem with dumb arguments like this. All legal citizens, should be able to buy any weapon they wish, within the limits of external risk. Obviously you don't want a nuclear bomb in your basement, where you could wipe out half the city.

But as far as guns and such, I have no problem with it anything.

The consitution says the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed, in relation to a millitia. Now a militia was every legal adult. That standard should be maintained.

does the constitution lay out on age limit for second amendment rights or are you just saying that? Does a 16 year old have the right to protect him/herself with a firearm?

Yes, militia is a legal adult. All legal adults. This is why a 10 year old, can't sign for property. You have to have a legal guardian own the responsibility. I would say 18, is the age you are considered a legal adult.

I’ll ask again. Does the constitution say 18 is a legal adult? Does it say legal adult in regards to the second amendment?

We both know the answer is NO. It’s ok to admit it

 

[Levant]

It's not a right, so it could be confiscated, but no one has tried to take your car away from you. Yet you live in fear someone will confiscate your guns if you have to register them?

Cars are registered for tax purposes.. What is the reason for registering guns?