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

[The Rabbi]

[


There is no rational reason for citizens of the US to have 300 million guns. None. .

You are wrong.

The Bill of Rights lays out the rational reason very nicely.

"Being necessary for the security of a free state".

It is in the Constitution. Go read it.

If you think Europe is better then move there. Stop screwing around with our Liberties in the US. It just makes you look like an ass.

You're almost right, a well regulated Militia is necessary for a free State, and the Militia is defined in Art. I, sec 8, clause 15 & 16. If The People were the object of the sentence, infringing the right to arm of all citizens (the insane, persons in prison and jails, etc.).would not be tolerated by a non biased USSC.

Scalia already dealt with that in Heller.
The People in the 2A means exactly what it means in the other amendments in the BoR.

 

[Contumacious]

Amazing you're back here for more abuse.
There are no loopholes.
CA already has universal background checks. As you point out, the shooters bought their guns legally, as is the case most times.
What laws would prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns?

Licensing, registration and an accounting of the number of rounds sold. A simple process, any gun in the possession of an unlicensed person become a felony, a felony for the person possessing the weapon, and a felony and loss of the license (which requires all of the sellers other guns to be destroyed).

Thus, without a FFL any sale of a gun becomes a felony, and any sale by a holder of a FFL who sells a gun or ammo to an unlicensed person becomes a felony with a mandatory prison sentence.

How about those apples. This is what the NRA and its supporters will face, for a nation which experiences gun violence on the scale we are having, will eventually awaken and take these or more draconian action.

Some day people of good will will occupy The Congress, and actually put Country First. Some day the Supreme Court will understand the Second Amendment is a problem and needs to be reigned in for the US to become a civilized place to live.

Better idea, how about you move your ass to N. Korea, they already have that bullshit. Send us a post card and tell us how fucking great it is.

Actually you have more in common with Kim Un Kook and N. Korea - you seek to silence any discussion on gun control, a sure sign of an authoritarian personality.

Talk all you want, every time you do, you demonstrate your total lack of understanding of our constitutional system. I enjoy the entertainment. That's all you are.

really? ok... show me where in heller even the winger scalia said there can't be regulation. because I can show you where he said you can.

but thank you for reminding me that rightwingnuts can't ever engage in discussion. I was hopeful for a moment.

THERE CAN NOT BE VALID REGULATION BY FEDGOV - ANY REGULATION IS A BOLD FACE USURPATION

HERE USE THIS TO FULFILL YOUR CLE REQUIREMENTS FOR 2015

Page 92 U. S. 553


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln,11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Hint: We dont give a shit what "the majority" of the country wants. And thats wrong anyway. Clearly the majority does not want gun control because gun control has been a loser at the ballot for 20 years.

The majority she refers to has no idea what the details of the regressive proposals are, they only hear the neat little slogans.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Hint: We dont give a shit what "the majority" of the country wants. And thats wrong anyway. Clearly the majority does not want gun control because gun control has been a loser at the ballot for 20 years.

The majority she refers to has no idea what the details of the regressive proposals are, they only hear the neat little slogans.

Let me write the questions and I'll get you the answers you want:
Do you favor disamring law abiding citizens in the face of threats of Muslim attacks?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

Where have I ever said convicted felons should have guns?

And you tell me how to stop wackos from getting guns

In fact I'm the only one here who has actually proposed a workable plan

Automatic life in prison without parole for any crime committed while possessing a firearm

That's how you stop gun crimes

i think keeping criminals and wackos from getting guns is a function of compiling readily accessible information. you might not like that, but fact is, it's pretty much the only way.... then making that information mandatory for sellers of guns to check in a national database. a waiting period after buying guns, if necessary, to get a full picture might also be appropriate.

the point is, that instead of people fighting against controls, perhaps it would be better if we dumped the NRA BS and work together to protect our society from the kinds of mass shooting we've been experiencing.

for the record, i think the participation of people who respect and understand guns is very important in achieving effective gun laws. I know how stupid some of the provisions of the AWB were and what the criteria were for defining automatic weapons making that law not only ineffective but absurd.

we can do better. we are the only civilized society that faces these problems with such regularity.

So how do you know if a person is mentally ill if there is no record of it?

And what do you propose that medical records be made public?

DId you ever think that maybe it's us and not the guns?

Americans are a violent breed

well, I suppose you can just say americans are a bunch of violent jerks. but I think that comes, at least in part, from our gun culture.

i'm not proposing making medical records public except that, like anything else that requires some type of clearance, if you don't want to release yoru records, then no license... no license no gun.

Then you must be in favor of applying that to every constitutionally protected right, correct?

Shit more kids die at the hands of their own parents either through abuse or neglect than by guns

Maybe we should have background checks for wannabe parents

 

[The Rabbi]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

Where have I ever said convicted felons should have guns?

And you tell me how to stop wackos from getting guns

In fact I'm the only one here who has actually proposed a workable plan

Automatic life in prison without parole for any crime committed while possessing a firearm

That's how you stop gun crimes

i think keeping criminals and wackos from getting guns is a function of compiling readily accessible information. you might not like that, but fact is, it's pretty much the only way.... then making that information mandatory for sellers of guns to check in a national database. a waiting period after buying guns, if necessary, to get a full picture might also be appropriate.

the point is, that instead of people fighting against controls, perhaps it would be better if we dumped the NRA BS and work together to protect our society from the kinds of mass shooting we've been experiencing.

for the record, i think the participation of people who respect and understand guns is very important in achieving effective gun laws. I know how stupid some of the provisions of the AWB were and what the criteria were for defining automatic weapons making that law not only ineffective but absurd.

we can do better. we are the only civilized society that faces these problems with such regularity.

So how do you know if a person is mentally ill if there is no record of it?

And what do you propose that medical records be made public?

DId you ever think that maybe it's us and not the guns?

Americans are a violent breed

well, I suppose you can just say americans are a bunch of violent jerks. but I think that comes, at least in part, from our gun culture.

i'm not proposing making medical records public except that, like anything else that requires some type of clearance, if you don't want to release yoru records, then no license... no license no gun.

Then you must be in favor of applying that to every constitutionally protected right, correct?

Shit more kids die at the hands of their own parents either through abuse or neglect than by guns

Maybe we should have background checks for wannabe parents

A permit for abortions. Examine the mother to see if she is mentally competent to choose.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where have I ever said convicted felons should have guns?

And you tell me how to stop wackos from getting guns

In fact I'm the only one here who has actually proposed a workable plan

Automatic life in prison without parole for any crime committed while possessing a firearm

That's how you stop gun crimes

i think keeping criminals and wackos from getting guns is a function of compiling readily accessible information. you might not like that, but fact is, it's pretty much the only way.... then making that information mandatory for sellers of guns to check in a national database. a waiting period after buying guns, if necessary, to get a full picture might also be appropriate.

the point is, that instead of people fighting against controls, perhaps it would be better if we dumped the NRA BS and work together to protect our society from the kinds of mass shooting we've been experiencing.

for the record, i think the participation of people who respect and understand guns is very important in achieving effective gun laws. I know how stupid some of the provisions of the AWB were and what the criteria were for defining automatic weapons making that law not only ineffective but absurd.

we can do better. we are the only civilized society that faces these problems with such regularity.

So how do you know if a person is mentally ill if there is no record of it?

And what do you propose that medical records be made public?

DId you ever think that maybe it's us and not the guns?

Americans are a violent breed

well, I suppose you can just say americans are a bunch of violent jerks. but I think that comes, at least in part, from our gun culture.

i'm not proposing making medical records public except that, like anything else that requires some type of clearance, if you don't want to release yoru records, then no license... no license no gun.

Then you must be in favor of applying that to every constitutionally protected right, correct?

Shit more kids die at the hands of their own parents either through abuse or neglect than by guns

Maybe we should have background checks for wannabe parents

A permit for abortions. Examine the mother to see if she is mentally competent to choose.

better yet a permit to get pregnant

 

[Flash]

[


There is no rational reason for citizens of the US to have 300 million guns. None. .

You are wrong.

The Bill of Rights lays out the rational reason very nicely.

"Being necessary for the security of a free state".

It is in the Constitution. Go read it.

If you think Europe is better then move there. Stop screwing around with our Liberties in the US. It just makes you look like an ass.

You're almost right, a well regulated Militia is necessary for a free State, and the Militia is defined in Art. I, sec 8, clause 15 & 16. If The People were the object of the sentence, infringing the right to arm of all citizens (the insane, persons in prison and jails, etc.).would not be tolerated by a non biased USSC.

I am 100% right.

Heller answered the question of the militia being all the people and established the Second as an individual right.

You Libtards lost on that issue so soak it up Buttercup.

 

[jillian]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Hint: We dont give a shit what "the majority" of the country wants. And thats wrong anyway. Clearly the majority does not want gun control because gun control has been a loser at the ballot for 20 years.

Delusional twit. But at least you were semi honest when you said wackos like you don't care what the majority of the country wants.

But I see why an ignorant bully like you would need a gun to feel like a man.

 

[TooTall]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

You left Muslims off your list.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Typical regressive response, our current laws are so complex they can't be properly enforced and your response is more laws, more complexity, then when that doesn't work you'll go for bans. The rational response would be arguing for better enforcement of current laws, there are already enough, maybe too many, to address it all.

There you go, why not repeal all laws, since our current laws are so complex they can't (in your analysis) be properly enforced? Of course that's not true.

Are laws are enforced, have you noticed we have more of our citizens in jail / prisons than any other country?

Q. Why do we outlaw Marijuana and not outlaw the sale of guns by anyone who has not been licensed to do so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

The majority DO NOT support your version of what to do. In fact your version is illegal and Unconstitutional and you admit it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Hint: We dont give a shit what "the majority" of the country wants. And thats wrong anyway. Clearly the majority does not want gun control because gun control has been a loser at the ballot for 20 years.

Delusional twit. But at least you were semi honest when you said wackos like you don't care what the majority of the country wants.

But I see why an ignorant bully like you would need a gun to feel like a man.

Yawn.
Same old shit. When called on it you deflect to insults and snark. Because you've got nothing.

 

[Valerie]

well that was a substantive post, speaking of having nothing..same old shit..etcetera

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Typical regressive response, our current laws are so complex they can't be properly enforced and your response is more laws, more complexity, then when that doesn't work you'll go for bans. The rational response would be arguing for better enforcement of current laws, there are already enough, maybe too many, to address it all.

There you go, why not repeal all laws, since our current laws are so complex they can't (in your analysis) be properly enforced? Of course that's not true.

Are laws are enforced, have you noticed we have more of our citizens in jail / prisons than any other country?

Q. Why do we outlaw Marijuana and not outlaw the sale of guns by anyone who has not been licensed to do so.

If it's not true then why aren't you demanding better enforcement.

The number of prosecutions in gun violation cases by the Justice Department has plunged under President Barack Obama despite his vow to enact tougher gun control laws, The Washington Times reported.

Report: Gun Prosecution Cases Plunge Under Obama

Why do we allow you to sell your car, cell phone, refrigerator or anything else without a resalers license? Americans have never been required to have a license to resale anything, even real property like your home, by themselves. The 14th amendment requires equal treatment under the law, how many licenses should we require you to purchase? Real estate, used car dealer, resale shop, how many?

 

[jillian]

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

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Hint: We dont give a shit what "the majority" of the country wants. And thats wrong anyway. Clearly the majority does not want gun control because gun control has been a loser at the ballot for 20 years.

Delusional twit. But at least you were semi honest when you said wackos like you don't care what the majority of the country wants.

But I see why an ignorant bully like you would need a gun to feel like a man.

Yawn.
Same old shit. When called on it you deflect to insults and snark. Because you've got nothing.

stop projecting loony toon.

do you think you're going to bully me? you couldn't bully a paper bag, troll. in real life, you'd just get your face punched in.

 

[jillian]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Typical regressive response, our current laws are so complex they can't be properly enforced and your response is more laws, more complexity, then when that doesn't work you'll go for bans. The rational response would be arguing for better enforcement of current laws, there are already enough, maybe too many, to address it all.

dude, the regressives are you idiots who want to bring women and blacks and gays back to the 1950's and turn this country back into the wild west words have meanings, you should really learn those meanings. otherwise, you're just a putz

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Typical regressive response, our current laws are so complex they can't be properly enforced and your response is more laws, more complexity, then when that doesn't work you'll go for bans. The rational response would be arguing for better enforcement of current laws, there are already enough, maybe too many, to address it all.

dude, the regressives are you idiots who want to bring women and blacks and gays back to the 1950's and turn this country back into the wild west words have meanings, you should really learn those meanings. otherwise, you're just a putz

Yep and you regressives want to return to your glory years, the 40's and the BS policies of FDR. So which of us are the most regressive? You also keep trying to invoke the "wild west" when the majority of your knowledge of the period comes from the imagination of screen writers. Good job REGRESSIVE.

Now you got anything that's actually on the topic of YOUR thread? Putz! I notice you've ignored the link I posted about gun crime prosecutions having plunged under your dear leader, you got any brilliant insights there?

 

[Wry Catcher]

[


There is no rational reason for citizens of the US to have 300 million guns. None. .

You are wrong.

The Bill of Rights lays out the rational reason very nicely.

"Being necessary for the security of a free state".

It is in the Constitution. Go read it.

If you think Europe is better then move there. Stop screwing around with our Liberties in the US. It just makes you look like an ass.

You're almost right, a well regulated Militia is necessary for a free State, and the Militia is defined in Art. I, sec 8, clause 15 & 16. If The People were the object of the sentence, infringing the right to arm of all citizens (the insane, persons in prison and jails, etc.).would not be tolerated by a non biased USSC.

I am 100% right.

Heller answered the question of the militia being all the people and established the Second as an individual right.

You Libtards lost on that issue so soak it up Buttercup.

5-4

 

[SwimExpert]

btw, two of the weapons used in yesterday's mass shooting (of which we have had more this year than there are days in the year) were purchased legally.

How many of the killings were legal?