Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Coyote]

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.

Sorry.....you are wrong.

If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.

The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.

You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.

Its much harder to find somebody to illegally sell you a gun than it is to just go to a store and buy one. If I was really driven to get one and I asked around enough then I'm sure I could find one. But its a much harder process, that means it is a deterrent and are you honestly going to claim that it wouldn't stop anybody from getting a gun?

Would you also claim that legalizing pot isn't resulting in more people buying pot?

It doesn't stop the people actually using guns to commit gun murder in our cities......and we aren't talking about the background checks that currently fail at gun stores....we are talking what you guys really want...universal background checks on all gun sales.....you want that because then, when they also fail to stop the gun criminals the democrat party keeps releasing, you will come back and demand universal gun registration.....which is the real goal, and universal background checks is just one thing you need to get there.

That is such a fraudulent argument yet you keep making it. Because it isn’t 100% effective, we shouldn’t do it.

That isn't the argument....the argument is 1) it doesn't stop actual criminals...which you twits know and 2) knowing it doesn't stop real criminals, the real reason you want universal background checks is to demand gun registration...so you can use the registration list to confiscate guns when you get the political power to do it.

Actually yes. That IS the argument you are making. You are simply imp,ting that those who get caught in background checks aren’t “real” criminals.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Sorry.....you are wrong.

If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.

The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.

You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.

Its much harder to find somebody to illegally sell you a gun than it is to just go to a store and buy one. If I was really driven to get one and I asked around enough then I'm sure I could find one. But its a much harder process, that means it is a deterrent and are you honestly going to claim that it wouldn't stop anybody from getting a gun?

Would you also claim that legalizing pot isn't resulting in more people buying pot?

It doesn't stop the people actually using guns to commit gun murder in our cities......and we aren't talking about the background checks that currently fail at gun stores....we are talking what you guys really want...universal background checks on all gun sales.....you want that because then, when they also fail to stop the gun criminals the democrat party keeps releasing, you will come back and demand universal gun registration.....which is the real goal, and universal background checks is just one thing you need to get there.

That is such a fraudulent argument yet you keep making it. Because it isn’t 100% effective, we shouldn’t do it.

That isn't the argument....the argument is 1) it doesn't stop actual criminals...which you twits know and 2) knowing it doesn't stop real criminals, the real reason you want universal background checks is to demand gun registration...so you can use the registration list to confiscate guns when you get the political power to do it.

Actually yes. That IS the argument you are making. You are simply imp,ting that those who get caught in background checks aren’t “real” criminals.

They aren't...the real criminals use straw buyers to buy their guns, or they steal them.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.

Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....

spoken like a true fascist

And you missed that......not surprising.

Comparing literacy tests and poll taxes to new gun laws just can't be grasped by your tiny brain....

Comparing voting - the most critical component of a representative form of government - to firearms Is nothing short of ludicrous.

That’s exactly what has kept our Republican form of government alive for 240 years. It’s only in the last few years you lefties have thought you had an actual chance to change that.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.

Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....

spoken like a true fascist

And you missed that......not surprising.

Comparing literacy tests and poll taxes to new gun laws just can't be grasped by your tiny brain....

Comparing voting - the most critical component of a representative form of government - to firearms Is nothing short of ludicrous.

Moron, the only thing that guarantees free and secret elections is an armed population.......wanting to take guns away from people and then have them rely solely on the government to protect them....after the last two months of democrat party politicians refusing to protect unarmed citizens is the ludicrous part.....you dumb twit.

Oh put-lease. That argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. The first is to assume that our guaranteed rights aren’t equally important. Well...you aren’t going to have a free and fair election if don’t have free speech or the right to assemble. The second is the implication that countries with stricter gun control dont have free and fair elections.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.

Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....

spoken like a true fascist

And you missed that......not surprising.

Comparing literacy tests and poll taxes to new gun laws just can't be grasped by your tiny brain....

Comparing voting - the most critical component of a representative form of government - to firearms Is nothing short of ludicrous.

Moron, the only thing that guarantees free and secret elections is an armed population.......wanting to take guns away from people and then have them rely solely on the government to protect them....after the last two months of democrat party politicians refusing to protect unarmed citizens is the ludicrous part.....you dumb twit.

Oh put-lease. That argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. The first is to assume that our guaranteed rights aren’t equally important. Well...you aren’t going to have a free and fair election if don’t have free speech or the right to assemble. The second is the implication that countries with stricter gun control dont have free and fair elections.

They have no way to guarantee free elections when the government goes rogue. They are at the complete mercy of "luck" to make sure their government doesn't turn on them the way the socialists have turned on every single country they have controlled.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Sorry.....you are wrong.

If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.

The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.

You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.

Its much harder to find somebody to illegally sell you a gun than it is to just go to a store and buy one. If I was really driven to get one and I asked around enough then I'm sure I could find one. But its a much harder process, that means it is a deterrent and are you honestly going to claim that it wouldn't stop anybody from getting a gun?

Would you also claim that legalizing pot isn't resulting in more people buying pot?

It doesn't stop the people actually using guns to commit gun murder in our cities......and we aren't talking about the background checks that currently fail at gun stores....we are talking what you guys really want...universal background checks on all gun sales.....you want that because then, when they also fail to stop the gun criminals the democrat party keeps releasing, you will come back and demand universal gun registration.....which is the real goal, and universal background checks is just one thing you need to get there.

That is such a fraudulent argument yet you keep making it. Because it isn’t 100% effective, we shouldn’t do it.

That isn't the argument....the argument is 1) it doesn't stop actual criminals...which you twits know and 2) knowing it doesn't stop real criminals, the real reason you want universal background checks is to demand gun registration...so you can use the registration list to confiscate guns when you get the political power to do it.

Actually yes. That IS the argument you are making. You are simply imp,ting that those who get caught in background checks aren’t “real” criminals.

They aren't...the real criminals use straw buyers to buy their guns, or they steal them.

Uh huh. There have been multiple studies on this which show varied results depending on the state and how it is implemented. They go from no effect on homicide rates to a 40% decline in homicide rates and a 25% decline in suicide. That is good enough for me since the only real argument against is that inconvenienc.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.

Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....

spoken like a true fascist

And you missed that......not surprising.

Comparing literacy tests and poll taxes to new gun laws just can't be grasped by your tiny brain....

Comparing voting - the most critical component of a representative form of government - to firearms Is nothing short of ludicrous.

Moron, the only thing that guarantees free and secret elections is an armed population.......wanting to take guns away from people and then have them rely solely on the government to protect them....after the last two months of democrat party politicians refusing to protect unarmed citizens is the ludicrous part.....you dumb twit.

Oh put-lease. That argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. The first is to assume that our guaranteed rights aren’t equally important. Well...you aren’t going to have a free and fair election if don’t have free speech or the right to assemble. The second is the implication that countries with stricter gun control dont have free and fair elections.

They have no way to guarantee free elections when the government goes rogue. They are at the complete mercy of "luck" to make sure their government doesn't turn on them the way the socialists have turned on every single country they have controlled.

Let’s stick to reality.

 

[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.

 

[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?

Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?

Great question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?

The one thing the worst cities have in common......the democrat party has been in control of those cities, even in Red States like Missouri, for decades......and they keep releasing violent gun criminals over and over again, and it is those criminals doing 95% or more of the killing with guns. Stop the democrat party from doing this, no new gun laws are needed...we already have all the laws we need to arrest and jail actual gun criminals.

Thats a weak excuse and a scapegoat. The nature of cities with dense populations and the problems that they have are very different than rural areas. Republicans run on Rural issues and Dems run on Urban issues which is why they are elected in cities.

Wrong.......the democrat party see violent criminals as victims and keep releasing them from custody, over and over again........you want to hide from this, but this is the truth and it is the reason we have the gun crime rates we have in democrat party controlled cities......

We don't need any new gun laws....we need to keep the democrat party prosecutors and judges from releasing violent gun criminals from jail and prison.

I’m not a member of the democrat party so in have no reason to hide from anything. I’m just here expressing my opinion so let’s stop with the childish insult games ok? I also wouldn’t continue to try and define what a group is doing when your clearly have animosity against that group. It doesn’t come off as rational, just makes you sound emotional. I’m not going to tell you how you think because what’s the point, would you really respect anything I had to say on the matter?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Levant]

Oh put-lease. That argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. The first is to assume that our guaranteed rights aren’t equally important. Well...you aren’t going to have a free and fair election if don’t have free speech or the right to assemble. The second is the implication that countries with stricter gun control dont have free and fair elections.

You mean free and fair like in Cuba? Venezuela? Russia? China?

 

[Coyote]

Oh put-lease. That argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. The first is to assume that our guaranteed rights aren’t equally important. Well...you aren’t going to have a free and fair election if don’t have free speech or the right to assemble. The second is the implication that countries with stricter gun control dont have free and fair elections.

You mean free and fair like in Cuba? Venezuela? Russia? China?

Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Germany, Norway, Australia, Japan....

Look at Finland...a common sense and sane approach to guns.

How gun laws in a dozen countries compare with New Zealand's new ban on semiautomatic weapons

The approach to gun laws in each of the 12 countries varies widely depending on whether owning a gun is considered a right or a privilege.

www.usatoday.com

Finland
Finland, where hunting is popular, has the highest per capita gun ownership in the Nordic countries. Handgun license applicants are allowed to purchase firearms only if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview and show they have a proper gun storage unit.

 

[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 any law but they passed those laws in a constitutional way.

 

[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?

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

...said the South before the Dred Scott decision.