Gun Control Compromise

[Daryl Hunt]

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}

So then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

well then, i have the right for my guns and they can't take it away.

thank you for summing this up so nicely.

What they can't take away from you is the right to protect your home. That's already been established. The Weapon of choice, they certainly can limit you to. They can't regulate your handgun in your home except by the number of rounds it can hold but they can regulate everything when you leave the home. It's your right in your home but it becomes a privilege when you exit your home.

No, it doesn't become a privilege when you exit your home as it stated in Heller...... Scalia states there might be a case that they can prohibit concealed carry, but that means that open carry is Constitutional...and even concealed carry was prohibited in some states as a custom, but the prohibition would be struck down today because it was just that, a custom, that broke the law and was unconstitutional even at the time it was enacted...

Again, you are presenting Dissenting Views. What part of Dissent are you having trouble with? You can't regulate a right. You can only regulate a privilege. You can't take a right but you can take a privilege. In the case of open carry, that is a privilege allowed by the State, County or Municipality, not the Feds. That Privilege can be taken away at the brush of a pen. But what can't be taken is the right to defend your home. That's a right. They can't take your right to own a sane handgun to defend your home inside the confines of your home. But they can define what Sane is like number of rounds contained, etc.. They can also require you to have a registered handgun and be licensed yourself. What they can't do is make it impossible to gain access to those registrations and licenses. Those are rights and those rights stop right outside your doorstep.

 

[2aguy]

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}

So then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

well then, i have the right for my guns and they can't take it away.

thank you for summing this up so nicely.

What they can't take away from you is the right to protect your home. That's already been established. The Weapon of choice, they certainly can limit you to. They can't regulate your handgun in your home except by the number of rounds it can hold but they can regulate everything when you leave the home. It's your right in your home but it becomes a privilege when you exit your home.

No, it doesn't become a privilege when you exit your home as it stated in Heller...... Scalia states there might be a case that they can prohibit concealed carry, but that means that open carry is Constitutional...and even concealed carry was prohibited in some states as a custom, but the prohibition would be struck down today because it was just that, a custom, that broke the law and was unconstitutional even at the time it was enacted...

Again, you are presenting Dissenting Views. What part of Dissent are you having trouble with? You can't regulate a right. You can only regulate a privilege. You can't take a right but you can take a privilege. In the case of open carry, that is a privilege allowed by the State, County or Municipality, not the Feds. That Privilege can be taken away at the brush of a pen. But what can't be taken is the right to defend your home. That's a right. They can't take your right to own a sane handgun to defend your home inside the confines of your home. But they can define what Sane is like number of rounds contained, etc.. They can also require you to have a registered handgun and be licensed yourself. What they can't do is make it impossible to gain access to those registrations and licenses. Those are rights and those rights stop right outside your doorstep.

No, moron, carrying a gun is not a privilege it is a Right, as stated in Heller. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

Also, Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, stated in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park ....( the court did not have enough votes to grant a hearing on Friedman, so Scalia's dissent was focused on why they should have taken the case, not on any of the merits).....Scalia wrote....
<trimmed due to the rest taking up too much bandwidth>

What part of Dissent are you having trouble with. I highlighted it. It's just some Justice running off his mouth. It looks good on paper but it can be extremely tiresome. Dissent is of the loosing side. The Ruling is done by the the successful side. Show me the rulings that back up your fantasy.

Moron, it wasn't a dissent on the merits of the case, it was a dissent telling the court they needed to hear the case......and he stated that AR-15 rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....and since he wrote the majority opinion in Heller, he was clarifying part of Heller that you moron's keep lying about.

And he was wrong. The AR-15 turns out to be a privilege that can be taken away by State and lower governments. And please don't bore us with the "And what about all the other....." since it now has to be spelled out specifically using this phrase, "All AR-15s and their various Clones". The Supreme Court has NEVER made the ruling therefore, it's been done by lower Federal Courts and the Supreme Court has refused to hear or overturn what these courts have ruled. Once again, you are lying about the ruling of Heller V DC. It's actually very simple and it only affected what Heller was sueing for and that was the right to have a serviceable handgun in his home. The Only reason it had to go the Supreme Court was that DC was so flagrant in the actions and it's outside the normal State District Courts.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

well then, i have the right for my guns and they can't take it away.

thank you for summing this up so nicely.

What they can't take away from you is the right to protect your home. That's already been established. The Weapon of choice, they certainly can limit you to. They can't regulate your handgun in your home except by the number of rounds it can hold but they can regulate everything when you leave the home. It's your right in your home but it becomes a privilege when you exit your home.

No, it doesn't become a privilege when you exit your home as it stated in Heller...... Scalia states there might be a case that they can prohibit concealed carry, but that means that open carry is Constitutional...and even concealed carry was prohibited in some states as a custom, but the prohibition would be struck down today because it was just that, a custom, that broke the law and was unconstitutional even at the time it was enacted...

Again, you are presenting Dissenting Views. What part of Dissent are you having trouble with? You can't regulate a right. You can only regulate a privilege. You can't take a right but you can take a privilege. In the case of open carry, that is a privilege allowed by the State, County or Municipality, not the Feds. That Privilege can be taken away at the brush of a pen. But what can't be taken is the right to defend your home. That's a right. They can't take your right to own a sane handgun to defend your home inside the confines of your home. But they can define what Sane is like number of rounds contained, etc.. They can also require you to have a registered handgun and be licensed yourself. What they can't do is make it impossible to gain access to those registrations and licenses. Those are rights and those rights stop right outside your doorstep.

No, moron, carrying a gun is not a privilege it is a Right, as stated in Heller. You don't know what you are talking about.

Here it is in the nutshell from people a whole lot smarter than you are.

SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER
By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities.


According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.


The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.

There it is in the nutshell. You keep reading into it (making shit up) trying to make it read what your little fantasy world wants it to read. You will also since they didn't mention Open Carry that it is protected by Heller. Just because they omitted it doesn't make it any less of a right. It's a right in the confines of your home but when you step out your doorway, it becomes a privilege. A right cannot be infringed but a Privilege can be regulated or even banned by the State or Local Governments.

 

[Conservative65]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again, you are presenting Dissenting Views. What part of Dissent are you having trouble with? You can't regulate a right. You can only regulate a privilege. You can't take a right but you can take a privilege. In the case of open carry, that is a privilege allowed by the State, County or Municipality, not the Feds. That Privilege can be taken away at the brush of a pen. But what can't be taken is the right to defend your home. That's a right. They can't take your right to own a sane handgun to defend your home inside the confines of your home. But they can define what Sane is like number of rounds contained, etc.. They can also require you to have a registered handgun and be licensed yourself. What they can't do is make it impossible to gain access to those registrations and licenses. Those are rights and those rights stop right outside your doorstep.

I will put on my reasonable hat for a moment.

I don't disagree with you on the right being limited beyond one's doorstep, for a very important reason below.

The type of weapon or magazine restriction you are discussing above runs contrary to Miller, where the Court decided that the right extended to any weapon that would be used in carrying out or preserving a well-regulated militia.

I interpret that to mean that anything a soldier might carry into battle is what the 2A protects. In essence, the Miller rule extends the right to a side arm (handgun), a select-fire M-4 with 30-round magazines, and hand grenades. But, that does right is limited beyond one's doorstep and local governments can make reasonable requirements for proper use and storage.

One's right to defend oneself does extend beyond his doorstep. So, to the extent anyone is making the argument that carrying a weapon outside you home is not protected, I would disagree. I can be reasonable and accept certain limitations on the manner and type of weapons carried, but an outright ban is an infringement on a right.

Now, the problem with putting on my reasonable hat is that what I suggest above will not be enough for some. They want to take it all away or severely limit it. Because I am faced with that very real and unreasonable threat, I must take off my reasonable hat and demand ZERO restrictions.

It's the only way to maintain balance.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

 

[Conservative65]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

 

[iceberg]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

i took a facebook IQ test.

i'm quite smart.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}

So then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

well then, i have the right for my guns and they can't take it away.

thank you for summing this up so nicely.

What they can't take away from you is the right to protect your home. That's already been established. The Weapon of choice, they certainly can limit you to. They can't regulate your handgun in your home except by the number of rounds it can hold but they can regulate everything when you leave the home. It's your right in your home but it becomes a privilege when you exit your home.

daryl you just said two different things,,,its up to no one what gun I use to protect my home since the 2nd amendment say my right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

regulating that is an infringement,,,

but I already knew you were not a 2nd supporter that only spews progressive views towards the 2nd A

but all thats moot since the 2nd isnt about home defense,,,or hunting

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Again, you are presenting Dissenting Views. What part of Dissent are you having trouble with? You can't regulate a right. You can only regulate a privilege. You can't take a right but you can take a privilege. In the case of open carry, that is a privilege allowed by the State, County or Municipality, not the Feds. That Privilege can be taken away at the brush of a pen. But what can't be taken is the right to defend your home. That's a right. They can't take your right to own a sane handgun to defend your home inside the confines of your home. But they can define what Sane is like number of rounds contained, etc.. They can also require you to have a registered handgun and be licensed yourself. What they can't do is make it impossible to gain access to those registrations and licenses. Those are rights and those rights stop right outside your doorstep.

I will put on my reasonable hat for a moment.

I don't disagree with you on the right being limited beyond one's doorstep, for a very important reason below.

The type of weapon or magazine restriction you are discussing above runs contrary to Miller, where the Court decided that the right extended to any weapon that would be used in carrying out or preserving a well-regulated militia.

I interpret that to mean that anything a soldier might carry into battle is what the 2A protects. In essence, the Miller rule extends the right to a side arm (handgun), a select-fire M-4 with 30-round magazines, and hand grenades. But, that does right does not extend beyond one's doorstep and local governments can make reasonable requirements for proper use and storage.

One's right to defend oneself does extend beyond his doorstep. So, the the extent anyone is making the argument that carrying a weapon outside you home is not protected, I would disagree. I can be reasonable and accept certain limitations on the manner and type of weapons carried, but an outright ban is an infringement on a right.

Now, the problem with putting on my reasonable hat is that what I suggest above will not be enough for some. They want to take it all away or severely limit it. Because I am faced with that very real and unreasonable threat, I must take off my reasonable hat and demand ZERO restrictions.

It's the only way to maintain balance.

I was not talking about what was moral or ethical. I was talking about what is legal. I don't agree that I shouldn't be able to have a weapon outside the home but within reason and safety. The gun in your home is your responsibility to maintain it in whatever method you desire. If I don't like it I just won't come around your home. But once you come out into the street it becomes a factor for everyone else as well. And that is where the laws change the Right to a Privilege. Like every other Privilege, you can take care of your privileges and keep them you can abuse them and lose those privileges. And yes, one bad apple can upset the applecart.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

Wow, the whorehouse debate society at work. If you can't come up with anything to defeat the others logic, go after the other person's character. Run Forest Run.

 

[Conservative65]

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

Wow, the whorehouse debate society at work. If you can't come up with anything to defeat the others logic, go after the other person's character. Run Forest Run.

No one can attack your character. You don't have any nor have you displayed logic except in your own Alzheimer's ravaged mind.

 

[Rustic]

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

Wow, the whorehouse debate society at work. If you can't come up with anything to defeat the others logic, go after the other person's character. Run Forest Run.

 

[Pilot1]

daryl you just said two different things,,,its up to no one what gun I use to protect my home since the 2nd amendment say my right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

regulating that is an infringement,,,

but I already knew you were not a 2nd supporter that only spews progressive views towards the 2nd A

but all thats moot since the 2nd isnt about home defense,,,or hunting

I agree that the 2A is not about home defense, self defense, nor hunting. However the 2A just guarantees our natural right to possess and carry an "Arm". It does NOT LIMIT how we can legally use that arm.

Liberal/Progressive (Democrat) politicians, like NY Governor, Andrew Cuomo, often wrongly want to equate the 2A to a right to hunting, and limit firearms just suited for that.

 

[Pilot1]

"God made Man. Colonel Colt made them equal."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I was not talking about what was moral or ethical. I was talking about what is legal. I don't agree that I shouldn't be able to have a weapon outside the home but within reason and safety. The gun in your home is your responsibility to maintain it in whatever method you desire. If I don't like it I just won't come around your home. But once you come out into the street it becomes a factor for everyone else as well. And that is where the laws change the Right to a Privilege. Like every other Privilege, you can take care of your privileges and keep them you can abuse them and lose those privileges. And yes, one bad apple can upset the applecart.

I guess I don't like the word "privilege" when I read this.

I believe one has a right to be armed outside his home. If you want to tell me that such a right is limited, I can be reasonable and accept it. In other words, if I am limited to 2 magazines of a certain capacity outside my home, and I must carry those weapons concealed, I can accept that.

If you want to impose reasonable training requirements, I don't think anyone can argue that is an infringement when the very meaning of being "well-regulated" is being trained and properly equipped.

But, again. That won't be good enough for some, so....

FUCK ALL YOU BITCHES, WE GET TO CARRY MACHINE GUNS AND NUKES IN PUBLIC FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

i took a facebook IQ test.

i'm quite smart.

I have two failed marraiges. Both were gorgeous blonds that looked like they step off a Model's Runway. The first one was dumber than a box of rocks. She played around and we parted sheets. I decided I wanted a smart one. I found a very talented Singer and helped her with here carreer. Her IQ was much higher than mine. But damn, I learned she had some serious problems. She could play me like a bass fiddle. But like most brilliant people, she had some serious draw backs. Her common sense was just about zero. She helped herself to all my professional equipment but the Judge, not being part of the industry, allowed me to have certain components that made all the rest pretty well worthless. She told me that I destroyed her carreer. Actually, the reason her carreer was destroyed was that it no longer had the business person in it and all others were afraid to take that job. I thought she had star quality (which she did on the surface) but working in Texas I learned that you don't have to that good to be a Star. She had natural talent while I had skills through practicing the trade. Last time I heard, she was working as a Waitress in a Truckstop going from man to man to man. It just got worse for her as he got older and her looks started to slip.

Having a High IQ isn't always a good thing. In fact, the higher the IQ the more the common everyday things get in the way. I once said that God gave us all the same tools. Some got more of one tool but they had to sacrifice other tools. And getting a degree doesn't make you any smarter. An Idiot that goes and gets an education ends up becoming an Educated Idiot.

 

[Pilot1]

The Constitution does not limit the type of arm, nor does it limit WHY we can carry an Arm. It just says we can. If I want to take six loaded magazines with me, or six guns, or sixteen knives, etc. I can, because it is my natural right. In fact when I go to my gun range to practice, I often take several firearms, and a few thousand rounds of ammunition. Very common, and most others do the same.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I was not talking about what was moral or ethical. I was talking about what is legal. I don't agree that I shouldn't be able to have a weapon outside the home but within reason and safety. The gun in your home is your responsibility to maintain it in whatever method you desire. If I don't like it I just won't come around your home. But once you come out into the street it becomes a factor for everyone else as well. And that is where the laws change the Right to a Privilege. Like every other Privilege, you can take care of your privileges and keep them you can abuse them and lose those privileges. And yes, one bad apple can upset the applecart.

I guess I don't like the word "privilege" when I read this.

I believe one has a right to be armed outside his home. If you want to tell me that such a right is limited, I can be reasonable and accept it. In other words, if I am limited to 2 magazines of a certain capacity outside my home, and I must carry those weapons concealed, I can accept that.

If you want to impose reasonable training requirements, I don't think anyone can argue that is an infringement when the very meaning of being "well-regulated" is being trained and properly equipped.

But, again. That won't be good enough for some, so....

FUCK ALL YOU BITCHES, WE GET TO CARRY MACHINE GUNS AND NUKES IN PUBLIC FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!!

Privilege is one of those words that we learn to detest at a very young age. So we come up with other words to say it that sound much softer. I am just cutting through the PC of things and getting to the meat and potatoes.