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

[OKTexas]

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 t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

What we don't understand is why all the methods you propose to achieve that actually only end up making it harder for law abiding people to get, possess and use firearms.

And except for shock value, I don;t know why you bring up pedo's, there isn't a rash of gun toting kid touchers running around, that we know of.

honestly? I don't care if it's "harder" for you. there is nothing saying that it shouldn't be a bit "harder"

What is it about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

 

[Contumacious]

inconvenience is not an issue. no one has a right against inconvenience in purchasing a weapon when there is a societal interest.

Is that true?

Tell me "Counselor"... what legal principle legitimately infringes upon the convenience of the citizen to purchase a firearm, to which they are otherwise Constitutionally entitled?

I'm intrigued...

(Reader, you'll want to pay attention here... shit's about to get real)

Mr fucktard, sir:

We have EQUAL RIGHTS?


Which right authorizes you to investigate to see if I am qualified to bear arms?

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"


.

me, personally? none.

the government? has every right to investigate you to make sure you're not a risk. and, again, even the wingiest of the wingers said, in Heller, that reasonable regulation is permissible. the extent of that regulation is what is up for grabs.

but why would you think the government couldn't examine your record to make sure you're not a wackjob before they put a gun in your hands. (the fact that reading your posts on this messageboard might give them all the reason they need to decline your request is a whole other story).

HOW IS IT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS MORE RIGHTS THAN DOES EACH INDIVIDUAL? WHICH FOUNDING FATHER SUPPORTED THAT?

SO BECAUSE I OPPOSE ZIONISM , THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DENY MY RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME?


.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most of these mass shootings are done by leftists...

Sanity And socialism cannot coexist...

that's delusional, nutter.

but thanks for playing.

the Nazi sym[pathizer Dylan klepbold and the white supremacist dylann roof were not democrats.

damn, do you lie just for fun?

He said MOST. Cant you read? No one enjoys mass shootings except for you Anti Gun Nutters. You care not for the health of anyone just the Political Advantage you can gain.

again, i'm not "Anti gun" whatever that means. i'm in favor of keeping them away from people who shouldn't have them.

and "most" is a lie. if there's one who's a lefty i'd be surprised. but what the heck..... why interfere with righgtwinwut spew.

Everyone here is in favor of keeping guns away from people that shouldn't have them.

But what you are missing is the fact that NO LAW will keep people that shouldn't have guns from getting them. Laws are only obeyed by law-abiding people, criminals by definition do not follow the law.

So your suggestion on making laws more stringent, simply isn't going to work and will only hinder law abiding people.

It keeps coming back to that and libs just will not understand it. You point out criminals dont obey law and criminals dont obey laws. ANd their response is they want to pass more laws.

 

[jillian]

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 t restrict gun ownership in those cases.

What we don't understand is why all the methods you propose to achieve that actually only end up making it harder for law abiding people to get, possess and use firearms.

And except for shock value, I don;t know why you bring up pedo's, there isn't a rash of gun toting kid touchers running around, that we know of.

honestly? I don't care if it's "harder" for you. there is nothing saying that it shouldn't be a bit "harder"

What is it about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What we don't understand is why all the methods you propose to achieve that actually only end up making it harder for law abiding people to get, possess and use firearms.

And except for shock value, I don;t know why you bring up pedo's, there isn't a rash of gun toting kid touchers running around, that we know of.

honestly? I don't care if it's "harder" for you. there is nothing saying that it shouldn't be a bit "harder"

What is it about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

What we don't understand is why all the methods you propose to achieve that actually only end up making it harder for law abiding people to get, possess and use firearms.

And except for shock value, I don;t know why you bring up pedo's, there isn't a rash of gun toting kid touchers running around, that we know of.

honestly? I don't care if it's "harder" for you. there is nothing saying that it shouldn't be a bit "harder"

What is it about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

Wrong. As usual. The Founders did not support the right to keep and bear to defend Great Britain, which was the government.
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

honestly? I don't care if it's "harder" for you. there is nothing saying that it shouldn't be a bit "harder"

What is it about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

I think the deepest thing she ever read was Cosmo... she certainly seems to know little about the founding or law.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Guns are to protect against ANYONE who wants to infringe on your 1st Amendment then any other Amendment after that. Government included.

You're just afraid of the Government, which is PROOF that it's FAR too big.

 

[jillian]

What is it about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

I think the deepest thing she ever read was Cosmo... she certainly seems to know little about the founding or law.

whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I suspect it takes a lot given the extent of your failure as a human being.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

I think the deepest thing she ever read was Cosmo... she certainly seems to know little about the founding or law.

whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I suspect it takes a lot given the extent of your failure as a human being.

And yet here you are boldly DEMANDING that other peoples rights be denied with out due process. And insisting that YOUR supposed rights do IN FACT outweigh ours.

 

[jillian]

Guns are to protect against ANYONE who wants to infringe on your 1st Amendment then any other Amendment after that. Government included.

You're just afraid of the Government, which is PROOF that it's FAR too big.

that's false. it's not about being afraid of the government. but I do know that the 2nd required a well-regulated militia, notwithstanding what scalia perverted it into. and I also know that treason is a justiceable offense set out in the constitution and the only crime set out in the document. that isn't because you have the right to fight the government. they made that illegal in the same breath as they gave the right to own guns as part of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". since there was no standing army at the time.

 

[jillian]

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

I think the deepest thing she ever read was Cosmo... she certainly seems to know little about the founding or law.

whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I suspect it takes a lot given the extent of your failure as a human being.

And yet here you are boldly DEMANDING that other peoples rights be denied with out due process. And insisting that YOUR supposed rights do IN FACT outweigh ours.

you don't have the right to not be subject to regulation.

but you want objective criteria... ok.. .what do you say to anyone on antipsychotic or antidepressant meds not being allowed guns.

you like that one?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

I think the deepest thing she ever read was Cosmo... she certainly seems to know little about the founding or law.

whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I suspect it takes a lot given the extent of your failure as a human being.

Ouch.. that's clever. But seriously, nobody is advocating for crazies and criminals to have guns... nobody. The problem is, excepting convicted criminals, how do we know who is crazy? Who defines crazy? A lot of time crazies aren't document crazy until they go crazy. And seriously, you think a background check is going to deter a crook from getting a weapon?

 

[Contumacious]

What we don't understand is why all the methods you propose to achieve that actually only end up making it harder for law abiding people to get, possess and use firearms.

And except for shock value, I don;t know why you bring up pedo's, there isn't a rash of gun toting kid touchers running around, that we know of.

honestly? I don't care if it's "harder" for you. there is nothing saying that it shouldn't be a bit "harder"

What is it about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

there is nothing about it that says reasonable regulation is inappropriate. go back and read heller. scalia was very clear about that.

every right gets infringed in certain instances when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual. that occurs even under the first, fourth and fifth amendments. so why should the second be more sacrosanct than the first?

The second was meant to be the peoples last resort to government over reach to secure their other rights. Why do you think the regressives are so set on destroying it?

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

BULLSHIT


SO WERE THE JEWS IN NAZI GERMANY COMMITTING "TREASON"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!



.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

I think the deepest thing she ever read was Cosmo... she certainly seems to know little about the founding or law.

whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I suspect it takes a lot given the extent of your failure as a human being.

And yet here you are boldly DEMANDING that other peoples rights be denied with out due process. And insisting that YOUR supposed rights do IN FACT outweigh ours.

you don't have the right to not be subject to regulation.

You do not have the right to deny me my right to due process. No matter how scary the world is.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

where on earth did you get that idea?

the 2nd was to let people DEFEND the government, not fight it. otherwise, treason wouldn't be the only crime set out in the constitution.

the idea that it is to let neo-confederate insurrectionists have delusions that they can fight the government is absurd.

I see you never bothered to read the Federalist papers or the words of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

I think the deepest thing she ever read was Cosmo... she certainly seems to know little about the founding or law.

whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I suspect it takes a lot given the extent of your failure as a human being.

And yet here you are boldly DEMANDING that other peoples rights be denied with out due process. And insisting that YOUR supposed rights do IN FACT outweigh ours.

you don't have the right to not be subject to regulation.

but you want objective criteria... ok.. .what do you say to anyone on antipsychotic or antidepressant meds not being allowed guns.

you like that one?

Except in the case of abortion, right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

the government? has every right to investigate you to make sure you're not a risk.

Golly... So the Government has rights?

The last I heard, Government doesn't have any right which does not exist in the least of those who consent to be governed.

ok... the government has the power....

does that make you feel better?

WE have the right to be protected from criminals and crazies having guns.

We actually don't have the right to be protected. We have the right to live free without injury from those intent on usurping our means to exercise our rights... and the duty to defend ourselves from that threat.

And if you'll check your SCOTUS rulings they have explained to you that the government does not owe you protection... thus it does not guarantee your protection.

Which is the basis for our RIGHT to investigate if others are a threat to innocent life.

 

[OKTexas]

It is illegal for felons, persons convicted of spousal abuse and those declared mentally unstable to posses guns.

What is your suggestion as to how to keep these people from acquiring a firearm?

i'd start with making sure the laws are unform across the country so runners can't bring weapons from south Carolina into new York.

i'd make sure the gunshow loophole is closes, as well as prohibiting transfers between private citizens without background checks and registration.

even scalia said only a total ban is impermissible and left the door open for appropriate regulation.

but you tell me, how do you keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them? (without throwing up your hands and saying only criminals will disobey the law... because that's true about laws against murder, too, it doesn't mean we don't legislate against murder).

What I want to know is how does banning me from getting a CCW, and making me pay $1000 and take 3 months to get a gun permit just for home ownership prevent someone else from using a gun illegally?

stop using the word "banned". that is hyperbole. unless you have a criminal record or mental illness, no one is talking about "banning" anything.

control yourself, marty.

I cannot get a CCW in NYC without showing cause for one in NYC. I am banned from carrying a handgun unless The NYPD approves my reason. It is a de facto ban, because they don't accept "because it's my right" as an answer.

Do you think that situation is right? Is that what you want spread to the rest of the country?

This is what you have to go through to just get a house permit in NYC.

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

The process for obtaining a handgun license in New York City is long (between 3 – 6 months, and waits up to 8 months are not uncommon), and compared to many other jurisdictions, rather expensive. It’s not particularly difficult, but it is tedious and incredibly time consuming. It tests your patience, and there is a lot of bureaucracy to deal with.

funny, I live in Brooklyn and my husband has a target/premise permit.

inconvenience is not an issue. no one has a right against inconvenience in purchasing a weapon when there is a societal interest.

again, even scalia, the wingiest of the wingers on the court acknowledged that the right to gun ownership is subject to reasonable regulation.

Law abiding persons right to self defense is not limited to the premises of their home. Any law to the contrary should be overturned.

 

[Valerie]

it'll be great when hillary leads the way to reinstating the assault weapons ban...

without any weaselly sunset provision this time!

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?



Hillary Clinton on gun violence prevention


Gun violence prevention
It is past time we act on gun violence.



“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”

Hillary, AUGUST 27, 2015


While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. About 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. That is unacceptable. It is a rebuke to this nation we love.

That’s why Hillary supports sensible action to address gun violence, including comprehensive background checks, cracking down on illegal gun traffickers, holding dealers and manufacturers accountable when they endanger Americans, and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

inconvenience is not an issue. no one has a right against inconvenience in purchasing a weapon when there is a societal interest.

Is that true?

Tell me "Counselor"... what legal principle legitimately infringes upon the convenience of the citizen to purchase a firearm, to which they are otherwise Constitutionally entitled?

I'm intrigued...

(Reader, you'll want to pay attention here... shit's about to get real)

Mr fucktard, sir:

We have EQUAL RIGHTS?


Which right authorizes you to investigate to see if I am qualified to bear arms?

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"


.

me, personally? none.

the government? has every right to investigate you to make sure you're not a risk. and, again, even the wingiest of the wingers said, in Heller, that reasonable regulation is permissible. the extent of that regulation is what is up for grabs.

but why would you think the government couldn't examine your record to make sure you're not a wackjob before they put a gun in your hands. (the fact that reading your posts on this messageboard might give them all the reason they need to decline your request is a whole other story).

You miss the point as usual, crooks aren't going to go through legal channels to purchase weapons.. they don't now.

and murderers are still going to commit murder but we don't throw up our hands and say not to legislate against killing people.

Here's the thing... that's requires ONE law.