Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.
In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?Licensing holds gun owners accountable.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.
Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.
Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.
That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.
In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.
Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.
I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.
In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?Licensing holds gun owners accountable.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.
Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.
Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.
That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.
In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.
Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.
This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.My interest is explained quite clearly - mitigating harm to innocents.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.
In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?Licensing holds gun owners accountable.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.
You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?
...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.Thus the strength of your argument....
If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners
As if this is a failing.In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...
The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.
As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.
And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position
I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.
In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.
You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?
...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.Thus the strength of your argument....
If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners
As if this is a failing.In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...
The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.
As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.
And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position
And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives
I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.
You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?
...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.Thus the strength of your argument....
If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners
As if this is a failing.In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...
The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.
As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.
And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position
That being the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot address what I said and chose to let it stand.
And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives
What does that tell an honest person in an honest debate?
Because there is stupid.What is this thread number 70?
And you are here....,.,Why?
1. That wasn't the question.I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.
In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.
Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.
Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.
That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.
In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.
Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.
I've been to NYC (have you) and walked around Manhattan during the day, on weekends and late into the evening, and, I've never felt threatened. I've stayed in Brooklyn and Queens and never had a problem, and I've gone to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, and other than feeling like a sardine on the subway, was never uncomfortable. Maybe you're like GZ, and walk around with a chip on your shoulder, looking for trouble 'cause you have a gun hidden in your pants; or maybe your'e just a coward.
The students in any school could be protected by armed guards (and armed teachers). Same with theaters, as well as moviegoers who are legally armed.This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;That's overly broad, far too much so to qualify as a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny test.
Without a compelling interest, a restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution is assumed unconstitutional.
In what way? If you commit a crime with a gun, doesn't the state hold you accountable, regardless of licensure?
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.
You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?
...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.Thus the strength of your argument....
If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners
As if this is a failing.In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...
The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.
As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.
And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position
In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).
We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives. You only care about yourself an your rights; I own a firearm and have will have no problem with applying for a license when CA gets around to making that a law; or registering it with the local police or my insurance company if that time comes. You do and I wonder why.
The Second Amendment is fine. Like any other amendment it is a general statement that needs to have common sense applied to it. Those who have violated societal laws with violence, and those who are mentally deranged, should not get gun licenses, or buy guns. Of course not.I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.
You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?
...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.Thus the strength of your argument....
If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners
As if this is a failing.In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...
The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.
As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.
And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position
That being the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot address what I said and chose to let it stand.
And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives
What does that tell an honest person in an honest debate?
Your position is simple, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct; mine is that if sane debate and sane policies are not compatible with the Second Amendment, than the Second is wrong and needs to be changed.
Another feather in the cap for the George Zimmerman fan club. Good!! I hope Apperson gets a stiff sentence.BREAKING UPDATE:
Let us all rejoice. Matt Apperson arrested and loaded up on charges for shooting at American patriot George Zimmerman.
UPDATES Man Who Shot At George Zimmerman Matt Apperson Arrested Update Three Charges NO BAIL . The Last Refuge
Because there is stupid.What is this thread number 70?
And you are here....,.,Why?
1. That wasn't the question.I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.By selling, giving, loaning a gun to someone unlicensed. That would constitute a crime;
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.
Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.
Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.
That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.
In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.
Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.
I've been to NYC (have you) and walked around Manhattan during the day, on weekends and late into the evening, and, I've never felt threatened. I've stayed in Brooklyn and Queens and never had a problem, and I've gone to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, and other than feeling like a sardine on the subway, was never uncomfortable. Maybe you're like GZ, and walk around with a chip on your shoulder, looking for trouble 'cause you have a gun hidden in your pants; or maybe your'e just a coward.
2. I was born in Manhattan, and lived there, and in the Bronx, for 30 years.
3. Getting back to the question >> Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ? Let's see if you can answer a question, rather than dodge it, "or maybe your'e just a coward."
The Second Amendment is fine. Like any other amendment it is a general statement that needs to have common sense applied to it. Those who have violated societal laws with violence, and those who are mentally deranged, should not get gun licenses, or buy guns. Of course not.I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.
You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.
You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?
...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.Thus the strength of your argument....
If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners
As if this is a failing.In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...
The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.
As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.
And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position
That being the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot address what I said and chose to let it stand.
And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives
What does that tell an honest person in an honest debate?
Your position is simple, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct; mine is that if sane debate and sane policies are not compatible with the Second Amendment, than the Second is wrong and needs to be changed.
In most states (if not all), it is only necessary to have a license to carry a gun. It is not necessary to have a license to buy a gun (including handguns) which can be kept in home, car, or business.The Second Amendment is fine. Like any other amendment it is a general statement that needs to have common sense applied to it. Those who have violated societal laws with violence, and those who are mentally deranged, should not get gun licenses, or buy guns. Of course not.I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?
You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.
You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?
...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.
If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?
As if this is a failing.
The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.
As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.
And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position
That being the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot address what I said and chose to let it stand.
And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives
What does that tell an honest person in an honest debate?
Your position is simple, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct; mine is that if sane debate and sane policies are not compatible with the Second Amendment, than the Second is wrong and needs to be changed.
Most of the guns used in mass murders have been legally obtained. My suggestion on licensing is not a cure all, it will simply hold those accountable who sell, loan, etc. a gun to someone unlicensed, and add enhancements to anyone convicted of having a gun in their possession in the commission of a crime.
It would also, IMO, require a person who wants a license to have completed a course in firearm safety, including the laws of use of force and civil penalties when someone is injured. A license would also be suspended or revoked after due process when convicted of a crime of violence, arrested for drunk in public, DUI or other elicit drug activities or detained as someone a danger to themselves or others.
Idiotic argument. The "bloodbath" you Leftwats predicted over and over would occur if people on the streets carried guns never happened. And it never will. It's a Leftist myth and one of a LONG list.1. That wasn't the question.I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.
Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.
Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.
Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.
That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.
In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.
Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.
I've been to NYC (have you) and walked around Manhattan during the day, on weekends and late into the evening, and, I've never felt threatened. I've stayed in Brooklyn and Queens and never had a problem, and I've gone to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, and other than feeling like a sardine on the subway, was never uncomfortable. Maybe you're like GZ, and walk around with a chip on your shoulder, looking for trouble 'cause you have a gun hidden in your pants; or maybe your'e just a coward.
2. I was born in Manhattan, and lived there, and in the Bronx, for 30 years.
3. Getting back to the question >> Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ? Let's see if you can answer a question, rather than dodge it, "or maybe your'e just a coward."
Sure, I don't believe ordinary law abiding citizens ought to be walking around Manhattan or any other city, town or village with a gun.
Imagine the carnage when someone lets loose with with a full magazine on any avenue in Manhattan because they were robbed? Not only will a round or two or three likely hit someone on their way to buy a slice, but the ensuring panic will surely cripple many more.
A police officer is trained, has a use of force policy and usually responds sensibly. The typical cowboy, who dreams of killing a bad guy, may have spent hours on the range, but has not the training or guidelines drilled into armed officers at the academy, and during their on going training.
And if such a law were repealed, anyone can carry a loaded weapon on the streets of NYC. Having lived in the Bronx and Manhattan you must admit that some of the millions walking the streets on any given day or night, in any of the boroughs of greater NY ain't quite right. A second factor to consider is that guns will become more and more ubiquitous, as fear invades the many. Much like a dog, a scared person is dangerous too, and fear negatively effects judgment.
There is plenty of debate.Zimmerman, a hero to racists, and should be but isn't, an example of why there ought to be an open debate on gun control.
I never said I found it funny. You just lied. As usual.These incidents sure seem to follow George Zimmerman:
George Zimmerman hurt in Florida shooting incident - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO
This time, he was shot at, in a dispute with another person.
Details, but not many at this time, at the link....
lol....
i'm not surprised you find this funny
In most states (if not all), it is only necessary to have a license to carry a gun. It is not necessary to have a license to buy a gun (including handguns) which can be kept in home, car, or business.The Second Amendment is fine. Like any other amendment it is a general statement that needs to have common sense applied to it. Those who have violated societal laws with violence, and those who are mentally deranged, should not get gun licenses, or buy guns. Of course not.I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).
That being the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot address what I said and chose to let it stand.
And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives
What does that tell an honest person in an honest debate?
Your position is simple, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct; mine is that if sane debate and sane policies are not compatible with the Second Amendment, than the Second is wrong and needs to be changed.
Most of the guns used in mass murders have been legally obtained. My suggestion on licensing is not a cure all, it will simply hold those accountable who sell, loan, etc. a gun to someone unlicensed, and add enhancements to anyone convicted of having a gun in their possession in the commission of a crime.
It would also, IMO, require a person who wants a license to have completed a course in firearm safety, including the laws of use of force and civil penalties when someone is injured. A license would also be suspended or revoked after due process when convicted of a crime of violence, arrested for drunk in public, DUI or other elicit drug activities or detained as someone a danger to themselves or others.
