Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Levant]

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

Wrong. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule against the Constitution. They do it, of course, but that doesn't mean that their ruling becomes constitutional.

 

[Levant]

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?

For the first 150 years of our nation, there was no age limit. I imagine a lot of 10 or 12 year olds ordered guns from the Sears, Robuck catalog. It's the job of parents to restrict their children from owning guns, not the government.

 

[Levant]

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.

The Constitution does NOT restrict gun rights to the militia. You're full of shit.

 

[Levant]

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.

Once again, you really need to do more research on the right to keep and bear arms and the history of the at right. The militia was any male from 16 to 60. Even the National Guard laws, which aren't really the militia, say from 17 to 45. So, no, it's not 18 or a legal adult. That's never been the definition in original definition, original intent, or the law.

But, it doesn't matter. There's no militia relationship required to keep and bear arms.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Wrong. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule against the Constitution. They do it, of course, but that doesn't mean that their ruling becomes constitutional.

Their ruling determines the law per the constitution. Then there are two ways to change the law. Vote in different law makers or find a better argument and take it to the court again

 

[Slade3200]

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?

For the first 150 years of our nation, there was no age limit. I imagine a lot of 10 or 12 year olds ordered guns from the Sears, Robuck catalog. It's the job of parents to restrict their children from owning guns, not the government.

Right... in that case I pissed off teenager can stop by the 711 buy an uzi and then blow away his school mates and we can just blame the parents. Brilliant

 

[Levant]

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

Wrong. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule against the Constitution. They do it, of course, but that doesn't mean that their ruling becomes constitutional.

Their ruling determines the law per the constitution. Then there are two ways to change the law. Vote in different law makers or find a better argument and take it to the court again

Have you ever read the Constitution? Nowhere in there does it say that the Supreme Court can make or create law. The Supreme Court rules on a specific case in front of them. That creates precedent. Lower courts generally follow precedent but precedent doesn't change the law. Legislatures may, or may not, create new laws based on the precedent.

If the Supreme Court rules that a person cannot be Catholic, for instance, a person cannot be arrested and charged with a crime for being Catholic. The legislature, Federal or state, would have to pass a law against being Catholic. Of course wouldn't be constitutional but it would have precedent so Obama appointed judges could lean on that precedent to accept the new law against being Catholic but they can't just create a new law based on precedent.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Wrong. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule against the Constitution. They do it, of course, but that doesn't mean that their ruling becomes constitutional.

Their ruling determines the law per the constitution. Then there are two ways to change the law. Vote in different law makers or find a better argument and take it to the court again

Have you ever read the Constitution? Nowhere in there does it say that the Supreme Court can make or create law. The Supreme Court rules on a specific case in front of them. That creates precedent. Lower courts generally follow precedent but precedent doesn't change the law. Legislatures may, or may not, create new laws based on the precedent.

If the Supreme Court rules that a person cannot be Catholic, for instance, a person cannot be arrested and charged with a crime for being Catholic. The legislature, Federal or state, would have to pass a law against being Catholic. Of course wouldn't be constitutional but it would have precedent so Obama appointed judges could lean on that precedent to accept the new law against being Catholic but they can't just create a new law based on precedent.

I never said that the Supreme Court makes law. But if a state passed a law making it illegal to be catholic and a case went to the court the the court could sure as hell rule against that law

 

[Levant]

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

Wrong. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule against the Constitution. They do it, of course, but that doesn't mean that their ruling becomes constitutional.

Their ruling determines the law per the constitution. Then there are two ways to change the law. Vote in different law makers or find a better argument and take it to the court again

Have you ever read the Constitution? Nowhere in there does it say that the Supreme Court can make or create law. The Supreme Court rules on a specific case in front of them. That creates precedent. Lower courts generally follow precedent but precedent doesn't change the law. Legislatures may, or may not, create new laws based on the precedent.

If the Supreme Court rules that a person cannot be Catholic, for instance, a person cannot be arrested and charged with a crime for being Catholic. The legislature, Federal or state, would have to pass a law against being Catholic. Of course wouldn't be constitutional but it would have precedent so Obama appointed judges could lean on that precedent to accept the new law against being Catholic but they can't just create a new law based on precedent.

I never said that the Supreme Court makes law. But if a state passed a law making it illegal to be catholic and a case went to the court the the court could sure as hell rule against that law

Here's what you said: "Their ruling determines the law per the constitution. "

 

[Slade3200]

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

Wrong. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule against the Constitution. They do it, of course, but that doesn't mean that their ruling becomes constitutional.

Their ruling determines the law per the constitution. Then there are two ways to change the law. Vote in different law makers or find a better argument and take it to the court again

Have you ever read the Constitution? Nowhere in there does it say that the Supreme Court can make or create law. The Supreme Court rules on a specific case in front of them. That creates precedent. Lower courts generally follow precedent but precedent doesn't change the law. Legislatures may, or may not, create new laws based on the precedent.

If the Supreme Court rules that a person cannot be Catholic, for instance, a person cannot be arrested and charged with a crime for being Catholic. The legislature, Federal or state, would have to pass a law against being Catholic. Of course wouldn't be constitutional but it would have precedent so Obama appointed judges could lean on that precedent to accept the new law against being Catholic but they can't just create a new law based on precedent.

I never said that the Supreme Court makes law. But if a state passed a law making it illegal to be catholic and a case went to the court the the court could sure as hell rule against that law

Here's what you said: "Their ruling determines the law per the constitution. "

yes, their ruling determines whether a law remains or is reversed or needs elements removed. I shouldn’t need to explain that

 

[martybegan]

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

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

 

[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

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I dont see why you keep saying I’m dodging questions when I’ve been giving you direct answers. Are you just trolling?

 

[martybegan]

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

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I dont see why you keep saying I’m dodging questions when I’ve been giving you direct answers. Are you just trolling?

You aren't answering with your view on it, you are saying what you would do based on the court's view of it.

That's a dodge.

 

[Flash]

Isn't it amazing how hard these stupid dispicable Moon Bats argue to take away our Constitutional rights?

Ben Franklin was right. There will be idiots that will be hell bent on destroying the Liberty in our Republic and we could lose 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

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

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I dont see why you keep saying I’m dodging questions when I’ve been giving you direct answers. Are you just trolling?

You aren't answering with your view on it, you are saying what you would do based on the court's view of it.

That's a dodge.

No I specifically said I would support challenging it in the Supreme Court if a state banned Catholicism. The question is way too general though so this is kind of a pointless discussion as detail matter. For example if a Catholic Church started using crucifixion as a form of punishment/penitence for their parishioners and that act was then banned by the courts then I would not have a problem.

 

[martybegan]

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

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I dont see why you keep saying I’m dodging questions when I’ve been giving you direct answers. Are you just trolling?

You aren't answering with your view on it, you are saying what you would do based on the court's view of it.

That's a dodge.

No I specifically said I would support challenging it in the Supreme Court if a state banned Catholicism. The question is way too general though so this is kind of a pointless discussion as detail matter. For example if a Catholic Church started using crucifixion as a form of punishment/penitence for their parishioners and that act was then banned by the courts then I would not have a problem.

You haven't said if you think banning a religion is constitutional or not.

 

[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

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I dont see why you keep saying I’m dodging questions when I’ve been giving you direct answers. Are you just trolling?

You aren't answering with your view on it, you are saying what you would do based on the court's view of it.

That's a dodge.

No I specifically said I would support challenging it in the Supreme Court if a state banned Catholicism. The question is way too general though so this is kind of a pointless discussion as detail matter. For example if a Catholic Church started using crucifixion as a form of punishment/penitence for their parishioners and that act was then banned by the courts then I would not have a problem.

You haven't said if you think banning a religion is constitutional or not.

It’s too general a question so I’ve explained in detail what MY thoughts are on it.

I don’t think it’s constitutional to ban an entire religion in this country. I don’t think it’s constitutional to ban all guns in this country. I do think it appropriate to regulate Elements of both guns and religion as states/constituents see fit. Those regulations are up for appeal to the courts by those who feel they are unconstitutional. That’s how the system works. I respect the system. Was that direct enough for you?

 

[alang1216]

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?

I can't register my car unless I own it and it passes inspection so there is a legal and safety component to VA registration.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wait! Former President Obama took all your guns.....that's why no 2nd Amendment supporters today are caring about the government jack-booted thugs in Portland. They are helpless without their guns.

You douchebags have been denying for 50 years that you want to implement gun control, and now here's the undeniable truth in print.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Wait! Former President Obama took all your guns.....that's why no 2nd Amendment supporters today are caring about the government jack-booted thugs in Portland. They are helpless without their guns.

You douchebags have been denying for 50 years that you want to implement gun control, and now here's the undeniable truth in print.

This douchebag has never denied it, I've always been in favor of gun control. I don't think anyone needs an M2 or a minigun but that's just me. I don't deny I want to confiscate guns from criminals, minors, and the mentally ill. Sport and self-defense uses are fine with me so long as you are responsible and know what you're doing.