Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Dubya]

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser. Good job baby boy, good job. BTW there was nothing ambiguous about Article 1, Section 2.

Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied is not semantics. You believe there is a right to life, liberty, or property, explicitly stated in the 5th Amendment, when it only states the conditions of depriving the person.

Why didn't you complete the sentence. It only states the conditions for depriving the person of those RIGHTS. Thus explicitly reaffirming them as such. Next

Explicitly isn't that hard of a word to learn.

 

[OKTexas]

C'mon, get a grip buddy, now you're comparing assault weapons to hammers and knives!

But OKTex, "Semantics, the last bastion of a loser" is VERY FUNNY TOO!!!!

You know blunt objects kill more people than rifles of all types, much less your so called assault rifles. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of a good fantasy.

When was the last time mass murder in a school was done with a blunt object?

So now only people who die in mass shootings only matter to the argument, is that what you're saying? Seems to me, tunnel vision, when considering policy for a country of 320 million people is a bit of an asinine way to approach it. You have clearly demonstrated no real knowledge of the subject yet you think you have an informed opinion just because of what you hear on the MSM. Trust me, you don't.

 

[OKTexas]

Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied is not semantics. You believe there is a right to life, liberty, or property, explicitly stated in the 5th Amendment, when it only states the conditions of depriving the person.

Why didn't you complete the sentence. It only states the conditions for depriving the person of those RIGHTS. Thus explicitly reaffirming them as such. Next

Explicitly isn't that hard of a word to learn.

Yep, you used the term in relation to the right to vote, I'm sorry you lack the ability to follow your own irregular line of thought, but that's your problem, not mine. I proved Article 1, Section 2 explicitly provided for the right to vote and as usual you just went on by without any acknowledgment of that fact. Now your trying to shift the conversation when you lose. Keep trying, I ain't going there.

 

[Dubya]

Why didn't you complete the sentence. It only states the conditions for depriving the person of those RIGHTS. Thus explicitly reaffirming them as such. Next

Explicitly isn't that hard of a word to learn.

Yep, you used the term in relation to the right to vote, I'm sorry you lack the ability to follow your own irregular line of thought, but that's your problem, not mine. I proved Article 1, Section 2 explicitly provided for the right to vote and as usual you just went on by without any acknowledgment of that fact. Now your trying to shift the conversation when you lose. Keep trying, I ain't going there.

You obviously can't understand the meaning of the word. I gave a link proving that the people who were at the federal convention couldn't agree on who should vote and knew the colonies had various requisites which couldn't be reconciled on the federal level. Ben Franklin is known to have made remarks about people owning a mule as owning property, which gave them the right to vote. The Founders always put issues that were controversial on the colonies or states to work out. They needed 9 colonies of the 13 to pass an article and they didn't always agree. The Bill of Rights became a gentlemen's agreement to get the Constitution passed.

 

[OKTexas]

Explicitly isn't that hard of a word to learn.

Yep, you used the term in relation to the right to vote, I'm sorry you lack the ability to follow your own irregular line of thought, but that's your problem, not mine. I proved Article 1, Section 2 explicitly provided for the right to vote and as usual you just went on by without any acknowledgment of that fact. Now your trying to shift the conversation when you lose. Keep trying, I ain't going there.

You obviously can't understand the meaning of the word. I gave a link proving that the people who were at the federal convention couldn't agree on who should vote and knew the colonies had various requisites which couldn't be reconciled on the federal level. Ben Franklin is known to have made remarks about people owning a mule as owning property, which gave them the right to vote. The Founders always put issues that were controversial on the colonies or states to work out. They needed 9 colonies of the 13 to pass an article and they didn't always agree. The Bill of Rights became a gentlemen's agreement to get the Constitution passed.

And what the hell does that have to do with the final Constitution, which established the qualifications to vote in federal elections. That was stated in Article 1, period, end of story.

 

[Dubya]

Yep, you used the term in relation to the right to vote, I'm sorry you lack the ability to follow your own irregular line of thought, but that's your problem, not mine. I proved Article 1, Section 2 explicitly provided for the right to vote and as usual you just went on by without any acknowledgment of that fact. Now your trying to shift the conversation when you lose. Keep trying, I ain't going there.

You obviously can't understand the meaning of the word. I gave a link proving that the people who were at the federal convention couldn't agree on who should vote and knew the colonies had various requisites which couldn't be reconciled on the federal level. Ben Franklin is known to have made remarks about people owning a mule as owning property, which gave them the right to vote. The Founders always put issues that were controversial on the colonies or states to work out. They needed 9 colonies of the 13 to pass an article and they didn't always agree. The Bill of Rights became a gentlemen's agreement to get the Constitution passed.

And what the hell does that have to do with the final Constitution, which established the qualifications to vote in federal elections. That was stated in Article 1, period, end of story.

They left it up to the colonies to decide, but you call that explicitly establishing the right to vote.

 

[OKTexas]

You obviously can't understand the meaning of the word. I gave a link proving that the people who were at the federal convention couldn't agree on who should vote and knew the colonies had various requisites which couldn't be reconciled on the federal level. Ben Franklin is known to have made remarks about people owning a mule as owning property, which gave them the right to vote. The Founders always put issues that were controversial on the colonies or states to work out. They needed 9 colonies of the 13 to pass an article and they didn't always agree. The Bill of Rights became a gentlemen's agreement to get the Constitution passed.

And what the hell does that have to do with the final Constitution, which established the qualifications to vote in federal elections. That was stated in Article 1, period, end of story.

They left it up to the colonies to decide, but you call that explicitly establishing the right to vote.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

The bold section establishes the qualifications to vote in federal elections, it doesn't get more explicit than that.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

 

[Dubya]

And what the hell does that have to do with the final Constitution, which established the qualifications to vote in federal elections. That was stated in Article 1, period, end of story.

They left it up to the colonies to decide, but you call that explicitly establishing the right to vote.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

The bold section establishes the qualifications to vote in federal elections, it doesn't get more explicit than that.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

Those qualification requisites are determined by the state.

 

[initforme]

dont people have something better to do that attend a gun show all day? I'll go to a gun shop and get my gun in less than 5 minutes. If you have to look around, I wonder about your IQ

 

[OKTexas]

They left it up to the colonies to decide, but you call that explicitly establishing the right to vote.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

The bold section establishes the qualifications to vote in federal elections, it doesn't get more explicit than that.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

Those qualification requisites are determined by the state.

And explicitly incorporated into the Constitution by that clause, what's the problem? You've lost this one baby boy, learn from it and move on.

 

[Dubya]

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

The bold section establishes the qualifications to vote in federal elections, it doesn't get more explicit than that.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

Those qualification requisites are determined by the state.

And explicitly incorporated into the Constitution by that clause, what's the problem? You've lost this one baby boy, learn from it and move on.

It says use the same method for voting that the lower house uses, whatever that might be. That's not explicit.

 

[OKTexas]

Those qualification requisites are determined by the state.

And explicitly incorporated into the Constitution by that clause, what's the problem? You've lost this one baby boy, learn from it and move on.

It says use the same method for voting that the lower house uses, whatever that might be. That's not explicit.

ROFLMAO Baby boy, your grasping for straws that aren't there, I'd rep you for the belly laugh if I could.

 

[Lakhota]

Gun regulation is as American as Wyatt Earp, the legendary frontier lawman who enforced Dodge City's ban on gun-carrying within town limits. But two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided for the first time that the Second Amendment grants a personal right to keep and bear arms, a decision that cast doubt on the future of gun control regulations in this country. Now, the court is considering a challenge to Chicago's ban on handgun ownership -- a regulation that has been in place for nearly 30 years. Would a repeal of the ban have a major impact on gun violence in Chicago or in other parts of the country? It's a tricky question. And disagreements on the answer come from several persistent myths about guns in America.

Five myths about gun control

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gun regulation is as American as Wyatt Earp, the legendary frontier lawman who enforced Dodge City's ban on gun-carrying within town limits. But two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided for the first time that the Second Amendment grants a personal right to keep and bear arms, a decision that cast doubt on the future of gun control regulations in this country. Now, the court is considering a challenge to Chicago's ban on handgun ownership -- a regulation that has been in place for nearly 30 years. Would a repeal of the ban have a major impact on gun violence in Chicago or in other parts of the country? It's a tricky question. And disagreements on the answer come from several persistent myths about guns in America.

Five myths about gun control

The guy that everyone thinks was a famous gunfighter, even though he was never in a gun fight? That Wyatt Earp?

 

[Lakhota]

So it is somewhat surprising to realize that many counties and towns in the West during the late 1800’s had stiffer gun control laws then they do in the modern era.

Ordinance No. 9

“To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons” (effective April 19, 1881).

Section 1: “It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to carry deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise [except the same be carried openly in sight, and in the hand] within the limits of the City of Tombstone.

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.”

More: Gun Control in the Old West? Facts and Fiction

 

[OKTexas]

So it is somewhat surprising to realize that many counties and towns in the West during the late 1800’s had stiffer gun control laws then they do in the modern era.

Ordinance No. 9

“To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons” (effective April 19, 1881).

Section 1: “It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to carry deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise [except the same be carried openly in sight, and in the hand] within the limits of the City of Tombstone.

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.”

More: Gun Control in the Old West? Facts and Fiction

Funny you would point to something that happened 31 years before they became a state.

 

[Lakhota]

Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp (March 19, 1848 – January 13, 1929) was a city policeman ("assistant city marshal") in Wichita, Kansas and Dodge City, Kansas. He also served as a deputy sheriff and deputy U.S. marshal in Tombstone, Arizona. He was also at different times a farmer, teamster, buffalo hunter, bouncer, saloon-keeper, gambler, miner, and on one occasion a boxing referee. He was never a cowboy or drover. He is best known for his part in the gunfight at the O.K. Corral during which three outlaw Cowboys were killed. The 30-second gunfight defined the rest of his life. Earp's modern-day reputation is that of the Old West's "toughest and deadliest gunman of his day."[1]

More: Wyatt Earp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dubya]

And explicitly incorporated into the Constitution by that clause, what's the problem? You've lost this one baby boy, learn from it and move on.

It says use the same method for voting that the lower house uses, whatever that might be. That's not explicit.

ROFLMAO Baby boy, your grasping for straws that aren't there, I'd rep you for the belly laugh if I could.

I keep telling you that word explicitly is way over your head.

 

[OKTexas]

It says use the same method for voting that the lower house uses, whatever that might be. That's not explicit.

ROFLMAO Baby boy, your grasping for straws that aren't there, I'd rep you for the belly laugh if I could.

I keep telling you that word explicitly is way over your head.

What ever, dismissed.

 

[Lakhota]

So it is somewhat surprising to realize that many counties and towns in the West during the late 1800’s had stiffer gun control laws then they do in the modern era.

Ordinance No. 9

“To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons” (effective April 19, 1881).

Section 1: “It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to carry deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise [except the same be carried openly in sight, and in the hand] within the limits of the City of Tombstone.

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.”

More: Gun Control in the Old West? Facts and Fiction

Funny you would point to something that happened 31 years before they became a state.

Kansas became a state in 1861.

Dodge City, Kansas: Ordinance No. 67 enacted August 14th 1882 specified that no one could “carry concealed or otherwise about his or her person, any pistol, bowie knife, slung shot or other dangerous or deadly weapons, except County, City, or United Sates Officers” and raised the fine from twenty-five dollars to one hundred dollars, no small amount in 1882. The Dodge City Times declared: “There is a disposition to do away with the carrying of firearms, and we hope the feeling will become general. The carrying of firearms is a barbarous custom, and it’s time the practice was broken up.”

More: Gun Control in the Old West? Facts and Fiction