If you don't want guns don't buy them?

[jillian]

Thats essentially the law in NYC and some other places. You have to apply for a permit and show some "good reason" why you need one. That it's your constitutional right somehow doesnt enter into it.

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

 

[martybegan]

Can we do that with voting too? How about if you want an abortion?

^ you have no business calling anyone a moron, moron.

I have every right to, dipshit.

Awww did I hurt your feeeewings????

Micro agression Micro-agression!!!!

Here is a macro-agression. Fuck off.

 

[BluesLegend]

Let's modify the Second Amendment

To what end? What the hell do you think that will accomplish? Europe has gun control laws and bans in spades and they have more shootings than the US does. Look the fact is Obama and many gun control advocates are liars, lets look at some facts.

1. In just 2015, France suffered more shooting casualties (killings and injuries) from mass public shootings than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424).

2. Of the four worst K-12 school shootings, three have occurred in Europe.

3. European countries actually have higher rates of death from public shootings that resulted in four or more murders vs the US.

 

[The Rabbi]

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

no, she doesn't CLAIM to be a lawyer..she happens to be one.

the only ones i see bringing up that FACT are butt hurt hacks who don't know how think.

Yeah, you are a "reliable source".

And again, I will ask a car mechanic to fix my car, I won't ask him where I want to go on vacation.

"Valerie" claims to be female. But in fact "she" is a 250lb tranny.

 

[jillian]

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

yes they would have to be challenged first, wingnut. i'm afraid you're the one who knows nothing, though. don't you think many regs have been challenged? the only one the Court took was Heller and I thiknk one before it that dealt with the issue peripherally. prior to heller, everyone knew that the 2nd did not protect a private right of gun ownership.

even in the absurd Heller, however, the only thing your boy scalia said was unconstitutional was a total ban and went on to say that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

you'd know tha tif you knew how to read a case.

The reason we needed Heller is that only recently, such as the 1976 ban on any handgun ownership in DC, was the concept that a person did not have a right to be armed at a minimum in their own home even CONSIDERED to be something that could exist. It's not that before Heller that "everyone knew the personal right to keep an arm didn't exist", its that before the stringent gun laws and bans of the 60's and 70's nobody even THOUGHT that people could be prevented from arming themselves to defend themselves.

Heller was needed to correct the wrongs done during the crime waves of the 60's, 70's and 80's. It reinforced a concept that was already understood, it did not create something new.

no, idiot. we didn't "need" heller. winger scalia doesn't believe in stare decisis and upended hundreds of years of our laws on this case and on the issue of corporations not being people or having a religious character.

I hope that helps.

 

[jillian]

Let's modify the Second Amendment

To what end? What the hell do you think that will accomplish? Europe has gun control laws and bans in spades and they have more shootings than the US does. Look the fact is Obama and many gun control advocates are liars, lets look at some facts.

1. In just 2015, France suffered more shooting casualties (killings and injuries) from mass public shootings than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424).

2. Of the four worst K-12 school shootings, three have occurred in Europe.

3. European countries actually have higher rates of death from public shootings that resulted in four or more murders vs the US.

not that it will happen, but to what end?

so imbeciles stop pretending that we live in the wild west.

 

[The Rabbi]

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

Thats funny. You have proven many times you have no idea what the legal system is or what being a lawyer is about. Im more inclined to think RDean is a lawyer than you.

 

[jillian]

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

Thats funny. You have proven many times you have no idea what the legal system is or what being a lawyer is about. Im more inclined to think RDean is a lawyer than you.

that's funny coming from a braindead angry misogynist wingnut who hates this country.

 

[martybegan]

I've been bitching about that over about 5 different theads. The whole purpose of NYC's laws is to make it so difficult to get a gun that you give up.

You only need their permission for CCW's, but even a home permit for a handgun takes 3-6 months and costs $1000 dollars.

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

I'm sorry I don't live inside your narrow, biased head, but reality is not the law, and the law is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. When you run to the law as the end all be all, you run to tyranny, you run to oppression, and you run to oligarchy.

You are nothing more than a miserable busy body, a proto-fascist who loves using government to mess with others, and a worshiper of authority, who would want nothing better then to return us to feudal times, where only people in power and with the government's backing can have the "privilege" to defend themselves.

Fuck you, and fuck all of your ilk.

 

[The Rabbi]

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

yes they would have to be challenged first, wingnut. i'm afraid you're the one who knows nothing, though. don't you think many regs have been challenged? the only one the Court took was Heller and I thiknk one before it that dealt with the issue peripherally. prior to heller, everyone knew that the 2nd did not protect a private right of gun ownership.

even in the absurd Heller, however, the only thing your boy scalia said was unconstitutional was a total ban and went on to say that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

you'd know tha tif you knew how to read a case.

The reason we needed Heller is that only recently, such as the 1976 ban on any handgun ownership in DC, was the concept that a person did not have a right to be armed at a minimum in their own home even CONSIDERED to be something that could exist. It's not that before Heller that "everyone knew the personal right to keep an arm didn't exist", its that before the stringent gun laws and bans of the 60's and 70's nobody even THOUGHT that people could be prevented from arming themselves to defend themselves.

Heller was needed to correct the wrongs done during the crime waves of the 60's, 70's and 80's. It reinforced a concept that was already understood, it did not create something new.

no, idiot. we didn't "need" heller. winger scalia doesn't believe in stare decisis and upended hundreds of years of our laws on this case and on the issue of corporations not being people or having a religious character.

I hope that helps.

Once again you reveal ignorance.
Scalia is not a "winger"
Scalia did not decide the case on his own
Scalia's opinion, whihc you havent read, upheld hundreds of years of legal principle. He goes through that. It is a masterpiece of originalist doctrine.

 

[The Rabbi]

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

Thats funny. You have proven many times you have no idea what the legal system is or what being a lawyer is about. Im more inclined to think RDean is a lawyer than you.

that's funny coming from a braindead angry misogynist wingnut who hates this country.

No refutation. Just misguided childish insults.
I rest my case, "counselor."

 

[Wry Catcher]

You read and can't comprehend. I'm not sure, but I'm beginning to believe your dense comments are not contrived. Of course you are dishonest, but maybe you even fool yourself.

People obey laws because they support them, or because they fear the consequences if they get caught.

Thus, a gun lover like you, would likely obey gun laws rather than risk the loss of them, the fines associated with not obeying the law and the possible jail or prison sentence.

Thus, licensing, registration and an accounting of the number of rounds of ammo purchased logged onto a national data base, with algorithms seeking anomalies associated with mass murderers and those on no fly lists, tied to FBI, State and Local Arrest records, including civil detentions for being a danger to themselves or others, has a good chance in saving lives and respecting a law abiding citizen's right to own, possess or have in his custody and control firearm.

And all we have to do to accomplish this is turn the US into a police state.

No thank you.

Where we stand on the dichotomy of Security and Freedom is determined by independent variables, the elephant in the room being radical Islam, but historically there are others as violent and radical: The SLA, McVeigh & unregulated militias, Street Gangs, the Unabomber and the Olympic bomber, to name but a few.

Note, murder is investigated by Motive, Opportunity and Means. Efforts to control Means and Opportunity can be effective, Motive is not easy to confirm before or after an event.

We can put our heads in the sand, and pretend the Second Amendment is the most important part of the COTUS, one that protects our nation from tyranny, but that opinion was codified for the first time by Scalia, and the blood of the innocents murdered yesterday, and everyday this year by a gun, are on his hands..

Drama queen.

We did not suspend the Constitution or any part of it in response to McVeigh or any other incident. We shouldnt start now.

Why shouldn't we discuss the viability of some parts of the COTUS, written in the 18th Century, as sufficient and necessary for a diverse nation in the 21st Century?

Should a State population be reduced by the number of ancestors of former slaves and native Americans (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause 3) and thus reduce the number of seats the state has in the H. of Reps.?

Why shouldn't POTUS have the line-item veto, we can then see the person or the persons who voted to keep or not pork in the national budget?

Let's modify the Second Amendment, to create a clear statement:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of each state to regulate, train and arm its corp shall not be infringed; nor shall any state infringe the right of its citizens to vote in any general election."​

We can add the COnstitution to things you know nothing about.
The census directed counting of some Indians and slaves by 3/5ths. It says nothing about people's ancestors.
The POTUS has the line item veto, if I recall correctly. It isnt a constitutional issue but a statutory one.
You are welcome to try amending the 2nd. Good luck.

I hesitate to call you a concrete thinker, because you don't think.

Some Governors have the line-item veto, the President of the United States does not.

The ancestors of former slaves have deep roots in America, for most of their ancestors arrived here well before most of our European ancestors, not descended from England arrived.

The Congress is dominated by cowards, men and women who will not vote to modify the 2nd Amendment, because they value their job more than the lives of the citizens they pretend to represent.

The NRA and people like you will never vote for anyone who even hints that some form of gun control is necessary, and you and they will support financially candidates who will do your bidding on this one issue, even when the candidate when elected will vote to support Wall St. Bankers at the expense of those they are hired to represent.

Of course denial of money will also be used to extort a vote from a member of Congress, something the NRA does every election year and whenever a mass shooting occurs. They never let a tragedy go without finding a way to exploit it.

 

[jillian]

Its senseless. And unconstitutional.

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

I'm sorry I don't live inside your narrow, biased head, but reality is not the law, and the law is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. When you run to the law as the end all be all, you run to tyranny, you run to oppression, and you run to oligarchy.

You are nothing more than a miserable busy body, a proto-fascist who loves using government to mess with others, and a worshiper of authority, who would want nothing better then to return us to feudal times, where only people in power and with the government's backing can have the "privilege" to defend themselves.

Fuck you, and fuck all of your ilk.

piss up a rope, dear. you're too stupid for air. and like I said, i'm done trying to be nice to imbeciles like you.

 

[jillian]

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

Thats funny. You have proven many times you have no idea what the legal system is or what being a lawyer is about. Im more inclined to think RDean is a lawyer than you.

that's funny coming from a braindead angry misogynist wingnut who hates this country.

No refutation. Just misguided childish insults.
I rest my case, "counselor."

again, funny coming from you, wingnut.

see, that's the thing, everyone knows you're one of the most ignorant toxic people on the board.

the fact that you think your opinion is worth anything is simply amusikng.

but I suppose that's all you have in your little basement, playing on the internet.

I suppose bullying people makes you feel like you're somebody.

pssst... you aren't.... you're just an angry neocon misogynist loser who needs guns to make up for your.... shortcomings.

 

[BluesLegend]

Let's modify the Second Amendment

To what end? What the hell do you think that will accomplish? Europe has gun control laws and bans in spades and they have more shootings than the US does. Look the fact is Obama and many gun control advocates are liars, lets look at some facts.

1. In just 2015, France suffered more shooting casualties (killings and injuries) from mass public shootings than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424).

2. Of the four worst K-12 school shootings, three have occurred in Europe.

3. European countries actually have higher rates of death from public shootings that resulted in four or more murders vs the US.

not that it will happen, but to what end?

so imbeciles stop pretending that we live in the wild west.

^^^ Possibly the stupidest reason to amend the US Constitution ever proposed.

 

[Rustic]

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

Thats funny. You have proven many times you have no idea what the legal system is or what being a lawyer is about. Im more inclined to think RDean is a lawyer than you.

that's funny coming from a braindead angry misogynist wingnut who hates this country.

No refutation. Just misguided childish insults.
I rest my case, "counselor."

again, funny coming from you, wingnut.

see, that's the thing, everyone knows you're one of the most ignorant toxic people on the board.

the fact that you think your opinion is worth anything is simply amusikng.

but I suppose that's all you have in your little basement, playing on the internet.

It sounds as if you may need a box of maxi-pads??

 

[jillian]

Let's modify the Second Amendment

To what end? What the hell do you think that will accomplish? Europe has gun control laws and bans in spades and they have more shootings than the US does. Look the fact is Obama and many gun control advocates are liars, lets look at some facts.

1. In just 2015, France suffered more shooting casualties (killings and injuries) from mass public shootings than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424).

2. Of the four worst K-12 school shootings, three have occurred in Europe.

3. European countries actually have higher rates of death from public shootings that resulted in four or more murders vs the US.

not that it will happen, but to what end?

so imbeciles stop pretending that we live in the wild west.

^^^ Possibly the stupidest reason to amend the US Constitution ever proposed.

I didn't say it would be amended. the question was asked why should it be.

and there's nothing stupid about it.

of course, I understand that rightwingnuts aren't really smart enough to engage on serious subjects.

 

[martybegan]

yeah....

no. it isn't. or those laws would have been struck down.

see how that works?

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

I'm sorry I don't live inside your narrow, biased head, but reality is not the law, and the law is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. When you run to the law as the end all be all, you run to tyranny, you run to oppression, and you run to oligarchy.

You are nothing more than a miserable busy body, a proto-fascist who loves using government to mess with others, and a worshiper of authority, who would want nothing better then to return us to feudal times, where only people in power and with the government's backing can have the "privilege" to defend themselves.

Fuck you, and fuck all of your ilk.

piss up a rope, dear. you're too stupid for air. and like I said, i'm done trying to be nice to imbeciles like you.

You can be as mean as you want Princess Piss-and-Moan, and I will put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

I've seen what type of idiots can get law degrees these days (if you actually have one), and I'll put my Masters of Chemical Engineering up against your JD any time.

 

[jillian]

They would need to be challenged first. Recall that DC's ban on guns existed for over 20 years.
We'll add "law" to things you dont know much about.

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

I'm sorry I don't live inside your narrow, biased head, but reality is not the law, and the law is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. When you run to the law as the end all be all, you run to tyranny, you run to oppression, and you run to oligarchy.

You are nothing more than a miserable busy body, a proto-fascist who loves using government to mess with others, and a worshiper of authority, who would want nothing better then to return us to feudal times, where only people in power and with the government's backing can have the "privilege" to defend themselves.

Fuck you, and fuck all of your ilk.

piss up a rope, dear. you're too stupid for air. and like I said, i'm done trying to be nice to imbeciles like you.

You can be as mean as you want Princess Piss-and-Moan, and I will put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

I've seen what type of idiots can get law degrees these days (if you actually have one), and I'll put my Masters of Chemical Engineering up against your JD any time.

the only thing you have a masters in, dear, is stupid.

 

[martybegan]

and yet the moron claims to be a lawyer.

I claim nothing. I state what I am.

i'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand our legal system marty. I tried to be as nice about it as I could.

but, really, you're ignorant on this issue as you are on the issue of marriage.

but there's no cure for stupid, so i'll stop treating you like you're a thinking human being.

I'm sorry I don't live inside your narrow, biased head, but reality is not the law, and the law is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. When you run to the law as the end all be all, you run to tyranny, you run to oppression, and you run to oligarchy.

You are nothing more than a miserable busy body, a proto-fascist who loves using government to mess with others, and a worshiper of authority, who would want nothing better then to return us to feudal times, where only people in power and with the government's backing can have the "privilege" to defend themselves.

Fuck you, and fuck all of your ilk.

piss up a rope, dear. you're too stupid for air. and like I said, i'm done trying to be nice to imbeciles like you.

You can be as mean as you want Princess Piss-and-Moan, and I will put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

I've seen what type of idiots can get law degrees these days (if you actually have one), and I'll put my Masters of Chemical Engineering up against your JD any time.

the only thing you have a masters in, dear, is stupid.

Good response, Dutchess Dipshit.