Hillary says NRA needs a "rival" organization of responsible gun owners

[BULLDOG]

Not specific, but since it is not denied, yes it is a constitutional right. Still doesn't prevent regulation..

The very definition of regulation is an infringement on activity, what do you fail to understand about "shall not be infringed"?

Ask Justice Scalia. Even he says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited - and he's a NaziCon fruitcake.

No right is unlimited, however when government decides to curtail the right, it has to 1)have an overriding need to do so and 2) use the most non intrusive methods of curtailing the right.

There is no overriding need to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to keep a 6 shot revolver in my house, and it sure as hell not a non intrusive method of trying to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

What federal law, or proposed federal law does that?

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

 

[martybegan]

The very definition of regulation is an infringement on activity, what do you fail to understand about "shall not be infringed"?

Ask Justice Scalia. Even he says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited - and he's a NaziCon fruitcake.

No right is unlimited, however when government decides to curtail the right, it has to 1)have an overriding need to do so and 2) use the most non intrusive methods of curtailing the right.

There is no overriding need to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to keep a 6 shot revolver in my house, and it sure as hell not a non intrusive method of trying to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

What federal law, or proposed federal law does that?

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

And red is not blue. We get it. The issue is that THIS is the law gun grabbers want to impose.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a revolver legally?

 

[BULLDOG]

Ask Justice Scalia. Even he says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited - and he's a NaziCon fruitcake.

No right is unlimited, however when government decides to curtail the right, it has to 1)have an overriding need to do so and 2) use the most non intrusive methods of curtailing the right.

There is no overriding need to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to keep a 6 shot revolver in my house, and it sure as hell not a non intrusive method of trying to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

What federal law, or proposed federal law does that?

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

And red is not blue. We get it. The issue is that THIS is the law gun grabbers want to impose.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a revolver legally?

You got a bill number where It's proposed that Federal law be modified to meet New York City standards, or are you just repeating more made up right wing gun nut rhetoric?

 

[OKTexas]

The very definition of regulation is an infringement on activity, what do you fail to understand about "shall not be infringed"?

Ask Justice Scalia. Even he says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited - and he's a NaziCon fruitcake.

No right is unlimited, however when government decides to curtail the right, it has to 1)have an overriding need to do so and 2) use the most non intrusive methods of curtailing the right.

There is no overriding need to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to keep a 6 shot revolver in my house, and it sure as hell not a non intrusive method of trying to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

What federal law, or proposed federal law does that?

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

Captain obvious strikes again, how do you do it?

 

[martybegan]

No right is unlimited, however when government decides to curtail the right, it has to 1)have an overriding need to do so and 2) use the most non intrusive methods of curtailing the right.

There is no overriding need to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to keep a 6 shot revolver in my house, and it sure as hell not a non intrusive method of trying to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

What federal law, or proposed federal law does that?

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

And red is not blue. We get it. The issue is that THIS is the law gun grabbers want to impose.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a revolver legally?

You got a bill number where It's proposed that Federal law be modified to meet New York City standards, or are you just repeating more made up right wing gun nut rhetoric?

I am projecting the end game for must gun control freaks. The concept is simple, make it so hard for a person to get a gun, that they give up.

You going to specifics on bill#, and whining about "federal laws" just shows you refuse to debate the actual topic.

Cowardly, of course, but that is what I expect from the likes of you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There you go again blaming the gun. Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

The gun is the tool The PERSON USING IT IS THE WEAPON. Idiot.

Move to Europe. No one there has a gun. Your prayers will be answered.

There are lots of tools that you just can't use without extensive training and evaluation. licensing, and continuing education. Try climbing into a big crane without certification and see how long you are allowed to stay there.

Is operating a "big crane" a specific Constitutional right?

You idiots come up with some stupid shit.

Not specific, but since it is not denied, yes it is a constitutional right. Still doesn't prevent regulation..

You give bulldogs a bad name. I have seen many bulldogs a lot smarter than you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ask Justice Scalia. Even he says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited - and he's a NaziCon fruitcake.

No right is unlimited, however when government decides to curtail the right, it has to 1)have an overriding need to do so and 2) use the most non intrusive methods of curtailing the right.

There is no overriding need to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to keep a 6 shot revolver in my house, and it sure as hell not a non intrusive method of trying to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

What federal law, or proposed federal law does that?

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

And red is not blue. We get it. The issue is that THIS is the law gun grabbers want to impose.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a revolver legally?

This is why crime is lower in NYC than it is in Dallas.
Oh wait.

 

[BULLDOG]

What federal law, or proposed federal law does that?

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

And red is not blue. We get it. The issue is that THIS is the law gun grabbers want to impose.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a revolver legally?

You got a bill number where It's proposed that Federal law be modified to meet New York City standards, or are you just repeating more made up right wing gun nut rhetoric?

I am projecting the end game for must gun control freaks. The concept is simple, make it so hard for a person to get a gun, that they give up.

You going to specifics on bill#, and whining about "federal laws" just shows you refuse to debate the actual topic.

Cowardly, of course, but that is what I expect from the likes of you.

You are hallucinating.

 

[martybegan]

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

And red is not blue. We get it. The issue is that THIS is the law gun grabbers want to impose.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a revolver legally?

You got a bill number where It's proposed that Federal law be modified to meet New York City standards, or are you just repeating more made up right wing gun nut rhetoric?

I am projecting the end game for must gun control freaks. The concept is simple, make it so hard for a person to get a gun, that they give up.

You going to specifics on bill#, and whining about "federal laws" just shows you refuse to debate the actual topic.

Cowardly, of course, but that is what I expect from the likes of you.

You are hallucinating.

And you didn't answer my question. Why should I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to be able to legally keep a revolver in my house?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nope.There are lots of us ex-NRA members who want nothing more than reasonable controls on who gets guns. Gun owners are not the problem. Gun nuts are.

Finally..will you explain "Reasonable controls," you keep saying strings of words that have "Reasonable," in them but then you don't follow up with actual reasonable controls.............it would be nice if for once you guys did that.

No matter what I say, you would refuse to see reason. It's a waste of time repeating the same things you have been repeatedly told, but chose to ignore. Your willful ignorance is complete,and you are of no use but to laugh at and point out you obvious stupidity. Believe what you will.

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Cite the law. Then we'll talk.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Post where I wrote I supported the NYC law! If you cannot quote my exact post which you alleged I stated what you said, you are a LIAR!

I know I never posted that I supported the law you allege I supported, and unless you can quote where I did and in the thread and post number I did the only conclusion possible is that you are a LIAR!!!

Marty was complaining and asking why NYC charged him a 1000 dollars and took months to get a permit to have a revolver in his home. I'm paraphrasing but you said because it was the law, and if he didn't like it to move to TX. If that wasn't supporting the law, what would you call it?

I'm not going to take the time to do your leg work, feel free to look it up for yourself.

But you never answered my question about WHY it should take that long and that much for me to get a gun.

"and because its the law" isn't an acceptable answer.

Wry said that, not me.

Yes, and he never answered WHY it should take that long and that much money for me to get a Revolver for my own house.

Yep, then he called me a liar when I busted his chops for supporting the NYC law.

Your are a liar. Never did I offer support for the NYC Law.

 

[martybegan]

Marty was complaining and asking why NYC charged him a 1000 dollars and took months to get a permit to have a revolver in his home. I'm paraphrasing but you said because it was the law, and if he didn't like it to move to TX. If that wasn't supporting the law, what would you call it?

I'm not going to take the time to do your leg work, feel free to look it up for yourself.

But you never answered my question about WHY it should take that long and that much for me to get a gun.

"and because its the law" isn't an acceptable answer.

Wry said that, not me.

Yes, and he never answered WHY it should take that long and that much money for me to get a Revolver for my own house.

Yep, then he called me a liar when I busted his chops for supporting the NYC law.

Your are a liar. Never did I offer support for the NYC Law.

You were asked if the law was acceptable or not, and you chose to dodge that question multiple times. You were asked what purpose that long of a period or that much of a cost served, and you did not answer it as well. You just said "the law is the law" and then did not answer any follow-ups.

 

[OldLady]

I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters? I also cannot fathom why Obama, who is supposed to be the leader of the Democrat Party, opted to use executive order to infuriate a whole bunch of voters. He could easily have simply done nothing and eased on out of office. His action will cause some who were sitting on the fence to vote against Hillary especially since she has decided to enter the fray as well. There are an awful lot of Democrats and Independents who are heavily into guns. To me, it's a stupid political move on both Obama's and Hillary's part.

She is NOT trying to take guns away from you.

And mentally ill people who buy guns legally and then let loose in a public place.

According to the form that is filled out when a person buys a firearm from a FFL dealer, a mentally ill person cannot legally purchase a firearm. So, your attempt to rebut him fails.

How does the seller know the person is mentally ill if he/she has never been hospitalized?

Who the hell said she was? Can't any of you Liberals read a damn post?

Well, I WILDLY and CRAZILY INFERRED that concern from your post and many others here. Seems like a huge reaction otherwise.

Yes, it was definitely a wild and crazy response to my post. May I suggest a remedial reading class?

May I explain what an inference is? Never mind; I'd prefer not to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

New York City law is not Federal law.

And red is not blue. We get it. The issue is that THIS is the law gun grabbers want to impose.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a revolver legally?

You got a bill number where It's proposed that Federal law be modified to meet New York City standards, or are you just repeating more made up right wing gun nut rhetoric?

I am projecting the end game for must gun control freaks. The concept is simple, make it so hard for a person to get a gun, that they give up.

You going to specifics on bill#, and whining about "federal laws" just shows you refuse to debate the actual topic.

Cowardly, of course, but that is what I expect from the likes of you.

You are hallucinating.

And you didn't answer my question. Why should I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to be able to legally keep a revolver in my house?

Ask Rudy or whosoever signed the law, not me. BTW, cite the law, I'm curious, why so long and so much - I do find that unreasonable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ask Justice Scalia. Even he says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited - and he's a NaziCon fruitcake.

No right is unlimited, however when government decides to curtail the right, it has to 1)have an overriding need to do so and 2) use the most non intrusive methods of curtailing the right.

There is no overriding need to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to keep a 6 shot revolver in my house, and it sure as hell not a non intrusive method of trying to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

What federal law, or proposed federal law does that?

It's NYC law, which is held as the "gold standard" for gun control by some people.

New York City law is not Federal law.

And red is not blue. We get it. The issue is that THIS is the law gun grabbers want to impose.

Why should it take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get a revolver legally?

Ask who ever signed the bill into law.

 

[OKTexas]

Finally..will you explain "Reasonable controls," you keep saying strings of words that have "Reasonable," in them but then you don't follow up with actual reasonable controls.............it would be nice if for once you guys did that.

No matter what I say, you would refuse to see reason. It's a waste of time repeating the same things you have been repeatedly told, but chose to ignore. Your willful ignorance is complete,and you are of no use but to laugh at and point out you obvious stupidity. Believe what you will.

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Cite the law. Then we'll talk.

What laws, we're talking about YOUR proposals, are you senile or just dense? I already know you're a coward, you didn't respond to post 364. So just carry on, you've managed to sway no one but yourself and you're a waste of my time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No matter what I say, you would refuse to see reason. It's a waste of time repeating the same things you have been repeatedly told, but chose to ignore. Your willful ignorance is complete,and you are of no use but to laugh at and point out you obvious stupidity. Believe what you will.

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Cite the law. Then we'll talk.

What laws, we're talking about YOUR proposals, are you senile or just dense? I already know you're a coward, you didn't respond to post 364. So just carry on, you've managed to sway no one but yourself and you're a waste of my time.

Cowards go to the grocery store with a gun, and can't be anywhere without a gun for fear of the boogeyman. Do you sleep with a night light too?

So, without lies and ad hominems you have nothing. Licensing and registration are not fee based in the thousand dollar range, I've said nothing about their costs. Nor did I claim or suggest that to get a license of register a gun would take 6+ months.

Your inference in 364 was wrong, evidence you cannot read with comprehension, or more likely, a lie.

 

[the_human_being]

I cannot fathom why Hillary even opened her mouth. Doesn't she realize that many of the Democrat party are NRA members and avid hunters? I also cannot fathom why Obama, who is supposed to be the leader of the Democrat Party, opted to use executive order to infuriate a whole bunch of voters. He could easily have simply done nothing and eased on out of office. His action will cause some who were sitting on the fence to vote against Hillary especially since she has decided to enter the fray as well. There are an awful lot of Democrats and Independents who are heavily into guns. To me, it's a stupid political move on both Obama's and Hillary's part.

She is NOT trying to take guns away from you.

According to the form that is filled out when a person buys a firearm from a FFL dealer, a mentally ill person cannot legally purchase a firearm. So, your attempt to rebut him fails.

How does the seller know the person is mentally ill if he/she has never been hospitalized?

Who the hell said she was? Can't any of you Liberals read a damn post?

Well, I WILDLY and CRAZILY INFERRED that concern from your post and many others here. Seems like a huge reaction otherwise.

Yes, it was definitely a wild and crazy response to my post. May I suggest a remedial reading class?

May I explain what an inference is? Never mind; I'd prefer not to.

What your own mind leads you to infer has absolutely no bearing on what I posted.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[OKTexas]

So far none of you regressives have been able to articulate what constitutes reasonable controls and show how they will effectively stop criminals from getting guns which is supposedly your only goal, correct?

Instead of making an editorial comment you might go back and read the arguments for licensing and registration.

I doubt it will change your mind, or even be considered, since you and others have expressed dozens and dozens of times that gun control will never work, and that the 2nd A. is absolute; you and others believe that gun control is and always will be unconstitutional.

Yet, you and others seem to feel it is fine and dandy to take the 2nd Right away from those who are mentally ill or have been convicted of a felony to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. How is that not an infringement on them?

Where in the 2nd A. does it even imply that felons and the mentally ill have lost the right to own a gun. Don't they have the right of self defense?

The arguments, if one could expand the meaning of the term presented by you and the others who oppose gun controls, are not sagacious, that means they are emotion driven and void of keen practical sense.

Federal licensing and registration is first and foremost against existing federal law, they violate privacy, but they are also violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. The supreme court has ruled that criminals who have a gun can not be prosecuted for failing to follow such requirements because of the 5th amendment. So now you run into a 14th amendment argument of equal protection, it they can't compel a criminal to follow such laws, how can they compel a law abiding citizen to do it?

Also rights can be removed by DUE PROCESS, meaning a court order. So anyone adjudicated as a felon, a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective can have their rights taken. Absolutely nothing short of that court order should be allowed to do so.

Considering the above, your arguments don't hold water when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, do they? So stop trying to push more costs and bureaucratic bullshit on law abiding citizens and concentrate on the folks that are actually violating the rights of the law abiding and throw their asses in jail or kill them, I really don't care which and leave us alone to freely go about our lives.

Cite the law. Then we'll talk.

What laws, we're talking about YOUR proposals, are you senile or just dense? I already know you're a coward, you didn't respond to post 364. So just carry on, you've managed to sway no one but yourself and you're a waste of my time.

Cowards go to the grocery store with a gun, and can't be anywhere without a gun for fear of the boogeyman. Do you sleep with a night light too?

So, without lies and ad hominems you have nothing. Licensing and registration are not fee based in the thousand dollar range, I've said nothing about their costs. Nor did I claim or suggest that to get a license of register a gun would take 6+ months.

Your inference in 364 was wrong, evidence you cannot read with comprehension, or more likely, a lie.

So you think first responders should be disarmed, good to know exactly how big a quack your are. You're dismissed.