Honest and open debate on gun control

[Derideo_Te]

Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;

Short attention span? Read Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution. Enumerated powers of federal government. Do you see gun control there? I don't. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.

Simply because something is not explicitly stated does NOT make it unconstitutional. Only the ignorant home schooled gun fetishists could come up with such inane drivel.

Moving on!

After your subsequent moronic rant, which was risible, you are the gall to ask this question;

Which part of "shall not be infringed" you do not understand?

Do you see the irony? Of course you don't. That would require intelligence which doesn't exist amongst gun festishists like you and your obsessed ilk.

That term does not mean what you imagine it means. Gun control regulations do NOT infringe upon your right to own a gun. They merely REGULATE your ownership of a gun.

But you already proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are utterly clueless as to what regulations entail so there is no point in wasting any time trying to educate the terminally obtuse.

Thanks for disqualifying yourself from the OP by demonstrating that you are incapable of engaging in an open and honest debate about gun control.

Have a nice day.

 

[westwall]

Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;

Short attention span? Read Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution. Enumerated powers of federal government. Do you see gun control there? I don't. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.

Simply because something is not explicitly stated does NOT make it unconstitutional. Only the ignorant home schooled gun fetishists could come up with such inane drivel.

Moving on!

After your subsequent moronic rant, which was risible, you are the gall to ask this question;

Which part of "shall not be infringed" you do not understand?

Do you see the irony? Of course you don't. That would require intelligence which doesn't exist amongst gun festishists like you and your obsessed ilk.

That term does not mean what you imagine it means. Gun control regulations do NOT infringe upon your right to own a gun. They merely REGULATE your ownership of a gun.

But you already proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are utterly clueless as to what regulations entail so there is no point in wasting any time trying to educate the terminally obtuse.

Thanks for disqualifying yourself from the OP by demonstrating that you are incapable of engaging in an open and honest debate about gun control.

Have a nice day.

Really? There is one thing that is specifically enumerated and that is "shall not be infringed" which makes the rest of your post moot.

Good day!

 

[2aguy]

Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;

Short attention span? Read Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution. Enumerated powers of federal government. Do you see gun control there? I don't. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.

Simply because something is not explicitly stated does NOT make it unconstitutional. Only the ignorant home schooled gun fetishists could come up with such inane drivel.

Moving on!

After your subsequent moronic rant, which was risible, you are the gall to ask this question;

Which part of "shall not be infringed" you do not understand?

Do you see the irony? Of course you don't. That would require intelligence which doesn't exist amongst gun festishists like you and your obsessed ilk.

That term does not mean what you imagine it means. Gun control regulations do NOT infringe upon your right to own a gun. They merely REGULATE your ownership of a gun.

But you already proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are utterly clueless as to what regulations entail so there is no point in wasting any time trying to educate the terminally obtuse.

Thanks for disqualifying yourself from the OP by demonstrating that you are incapable of engaging in an open and honest debate about gun control.

Have a nice day.

Well then.....you must agree that requiring black people to pay poll taxes and pass literacy tests did not infringe on their right to vote either, since all they had to do was pay the tax and pass the test....right moron?

 

[jon_berzerk]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

no what is foolish and idiotic is a lefttard trying to link that anyone thinks that an ICBM might be a 2nd amendment arm

it is a straw position

In the Cold War there was an arms race. This had a lot to do with ICBMs. The term "arms" can mean any weapon.

arms definition of arms in Oxford dictionary American English US

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments:"

Definition of arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. weapons collectively See also small arms"

Definition of bear arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. to carry weapons"

So, these common dictionaries use the term "arms" to mean weapons. And ICBM is a weapon, it is therefore arms. "The right to keep and bear arms", why would it not include ICBMs?

I mean, it DOESN'T include ICBMs and I know why. But the question is DO YOU?

explain it weirdo

 

[Freewill]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;
Simply because something is not explicitly stated does NOT make it unconstitutional. Only the ignorant home schooled gun fetishists could come up with such inane drivel.

Based on intensity of your insults, it seems you're losing it. Calm down kid.

Article 1, Section 8 states Congress powers. Then there is 10th Amendment that says: "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."

Read it couple of times and let it sink in.

After your subsequent moronic rant, which was risible, you are the gall to ask this question;

Do you see the irony? Of course you don't. That would require intelligence which doesn't exist amongst gun festishists like you and your obsessed ilk.

Typical liberal. When losing, throw more insults.

That term does not mean what you imagine it means.

Why dont you explain what infringe means?

Gun control regulations do NOT infringe upon your right to own a gun. They merely REGULATE your ownership of a gun.

The Congress has no jurisdiction over individual rights. Congress cannot make laws that do not involve enforcing their enumerated powers. How individuals keep and bear arms is not an enumerated power and is therefore out of their control. Btw, where does it say that well regulated militia is to be regulated by federal government? It could just mean regulated my the militia itself.

Read this few times and let it sink in.

But you already proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are utterly clueless as to what regulations entail so there is no point in wasting any time trying to educate the terminally obtuse.

Thanks for disqualifying yourself from the OP by demonstrating that you are incapable of engaging in an open and honest debate about gun control.
Have a nice day.

More insults, how childish of you.

Listen kiddo, I've seen homeless shouting at pigeons making more sense then you and yet you decided to disqualify me from debate. In couple of years, when you mature, you'll be able to realize that your inferiority complex is fully justified. The only worse than that is to remain liberal.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

 

[2aguy]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

They also should have known him to be a psycho.

Really....when trained professionals miss these guys all the time...? The untrained, people in the middle of a family situation with a loved one should know how to diagnose a threat level.....really?

If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime.

Did you think this one thru.....so you have a criminal break into your home and steal your property....your guns, and commits a crime with them...you didn't commit the crime and in fact are a victim of a crime...but now you are held responsible.....care to rethink that?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

They also should have known him to be a psycho.

Really....when trained professionals miss these guys all the time...? The untrained, people in the middle of a family situation with a loved one should know how to diagnose a threat level.....really?

If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime.

Did you think this one thru.....so you have a criminal break into your home and steal your property....your guns, and commits a crime with them...you didn't commit the crime and in fact are a victim of a crime...but now you are held responsible.....care to rethink that?

or stole his car

and robbed a bank

should freewill do the time

 

[Freewill]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

They also should have known him to be a psycho.

Really....when trained professionals miss these guys all the time...? The untrained, people in the middle of a family situation with a loved one should know how to diagnose a threat level.....really?

If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime.

Did you think this one thru.....so you have a criminal break into your home and steal your property....your guns, and commits a crime with them...you didn't commit the crime and in fact are a victim of a crime...but now you are held responsible.....care to rethink that?

Yes, really. Who is going to know him better?

Keep your guns safely stored, that is the point. Why should someone lose a loved on because a person can't properly control their weapons? Don't want the liability of owning a gun, then don't own a gun. And I say that owning guns.

 

[Freewill]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

 

[Freewill]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

They also should have known him to be a psycho.

Really....when trained professionals miss these guys all the time...? The untrained, people in the middle of a family situation with a loved one should know how to diagnose a threat level.....really?

If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime.

Did you think this one thru.....so you have a criminal break into your home and steal your property....your guns, and commits a crime with them...you didn't commit the crime and in fact are a victim of a crime...but now you are held responsible.....care to rethink that?

or stole his car

and robbed a bank

should freewill do the time

Cars are not used usually used to kill folks. But I would say if you leave your keys in the car.....well a person doing so just ain't that smart. I am really at a lost to understand your problem with a person having to control their guns.

 

[pwjohn]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

Why is gun control so important to you and what laws would you like to see passed that might lead to improved firearm safety?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

of course the same as any other straw purchaser

it is reasonable to expect that dad would know his kid is under federal charges

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

They also should have known him to be a psycho.

Really....when trained professionals miss these guys all the time...? The untrained, people in the middle of a family situation with a loved one should know how to diagnose a threat level.....really?

If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime.

Did you think this one thru.....so you have a criminal break into your home and steal your property....your guns, and commits a crime with them...you didn't commit the crime and in fact are a victim of a crime...but now you are held responsible.....care to rethink that?

or stole his car

and robbed a bank

should freewill do the time

Cars are not used usually used to kill folks. But I would say if you leave your keys in the car.....well a person doing so just ain't that smart. I am really at a lost to understand your problem with a person having to control their guns.

cars are property the same as a firearm either can be used for good or bad

leaving the keys may be careless and merit getting pinched by the cops

in some places it is crime to leave your keys in the car

but what about the person who does everything by the book

and still has property stolen that is later used in a crime

should they still be held responsible for that crime


on the side i would say that guns are not "usually used to kill folks" considering the number of guns -the number of people who have guns -verses the number of murders

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

Someone steals your car, you're responsible for the people he runs over?
How does this prevent criminals from getting a gun?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;
Simply because something is not explicitly stated does NOT make it unconstitutional. Only the ignorant home schooled gun fetishists could come up with such inane drivel.

Based on intensity of your insults, it seems you're losing it. Calm down kid.

He's only here to troll you -- he knows he argues from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

Why is gun control so important to you and what laws would you like to see passed that might lead to improved firearm safety?

I'm sorry... I don't see a sound response. Please try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

421 posts, no sound response.
Huh.

 

[EverCurious]

There are zero /new/ gun control laws that would not infringe upon the 2nd.

Frankly, it's going to shortly be an absolutely moot point - 3D printed firearms - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia