Illinois Firearm Identification card ruled unConstitutional in state court....yes, this is correct.

[Blues Man]

You still don't get that calling people "Darkies" is racist

You must be a Daryl sock puppet because you're both the same kind of stupid

Naw, man, I point out the stupidity that you guys think that when it's folks of color being killed in the inner city, that's perfectly fine, because the last thing you want to do is chuck out $10.00 and have a background check done before you compensate for your tiny pecker.

It's sad when someone gets shot on a poor street corner because two groups of hoodlums were fighting over who gets to sell drugs on that corner. .

It's sad when a crazy person breaks into a school or a theater and shoots a bunch of people because the voices in his head told him to.

And both are possible because the NRA has decided that there is a "right to own guns" in the Militia Amendment, a crazy idea that no one believed until the Gun Manufacturers co-opted the NRA.

You guys?

You seem incapable of directing any comments to an individual.

I have never once mentioned the race of anyone. You have and in a disparaging manner. In fact you're too much of a pussy to say the word ******* so you use darkies. Embrace your racism it will be the first honest thing I will have ever seen from you here

And FYI people have owned guns long before the NRA ever existed.

 

[Blues Man]

Now I know why you don't use the N word. It gets redacted

 

[JoeB131]

You guys?

You seem incapable of directing any comments to an individual.

I have never once mentioned the race of anyone. You have and in a disparaging manner.

And FYI people have owned guns long before the NRA ever existed.

You are the one who said it was okay that we have so much gun violence because most of it is in the inner cities.

We have never had so many guns as we have now. And while in the past, guns were for practical things like hunting, today, the gun industry realizes that it's market is gun nuts and criminals and that's who they market to. Just like the Alcohol industry markets to drunks.

 

[Blues Man]

You guys?

You seem incapable of directing any comments to an individual.

I have never once mentioned the race of anyone. You have and in a disparaging manner.

And FYI people have owned guns long before the NRA ever existed.

You are the one who said it was okay that we have so much gun violence because most of it is in the inner cities.

We have never had so many guns as we have now. And while in the past, guns were for practical things like hunting, today, the gun industry realizes that it's market is gun nuts and criminals and that's who they market to. Just like the Alcohol industry markets to drunks.

Where did I say it was OK? If you're going to tell me what I said use the quote function. Don't fabricate a statement, attribute it to me than argue against that fabrication

I said that is where most violence occurs and that most of the firearms used are illegally obtained.

That is a statement of fact, there is no judgement attached

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is your argument? Mass shootings are no big deal because we have so many single shooting, but that's okay, because it's just the darkies shooting each other.

View attachment 253765

If you want to lower the murder rate as you claim you wouldn't be fixated on less than 1% of all murders

And don't bother responding to me if you can't drop your racist bullshit

If you can almost completely eliminate 1% then you should do it. We have had more than our fair share and have done exactly that. It didn't take way my freedoms, my ability to buy guns and ammo, nothing. It did make it harder for fruitcakes to make their purchases though who always want to cheat the system. It appears that they are more likely to be the ones that do the mass shootings and the ones we, as a community, have to be more conscious of at any given time. If you feel that it's taken away any of your freedoms, maybe we should be watching you more closely as well.

And you could have left off the last sentence in response, you bigoted, redneck, KKK, Ultraright, prick.

Banning a rifle won't do that.

And you can't seem to comprehend that the response you quoted was not directed at you but rather to Joe the racist fuck.

Are your sock puppets getting mixed up?

It certainly stopped the Thompson in it's tracks but it took about 10 years of aggressive law enforcement and community involvement to get it done. I you trying to tell me that your Grand and Great Grands were smarter than you are?

They were certainly smarter than you because they all knew the Bill of Rights was a part of the constitution

Hate to break it to you but the Bill of Rights influenced the Constitution but the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution. When you scream, "That's against the Bill of Rights" you are saying that a document of no legal standings actually means anything today. Now if you want to scream, "That''s Unconstitutional" and you used the whole of the Constitution to back it up then I'll support you. Until then, you are just crying in the wind. And your Grand and Greats were many times smarter than you. They understood that the 2nd amendment was not absolute.

 

[Blues Man]

If you want to lower the murder rate as you claim you wouldn't be fixated on less than 1% of all murders

And don't bother responding to me if you can't drop your racist bullshit

If you can almost completely eliminate 1% then you should do it. We have had more than our fair share and have done exactly that. It didn't take way my freedoms, my ability to buy guns and ammo, nothing. It did make it harder for fruitcakes to make their purchases though who always want to cheat the system. It appears that they are more likely to be the ones that do the mass shootings and the ones we, as a community, have to be more conscious of at any given time. If you feel that it's taken away any of your freedoms, maybe we should be watching you more closely as well.

And you could have left off the last sentence in response, you bigoted, redneck, KKK, Ultraright, prick.

Banning a rifle won't do that.

And you can't seem to comprehend that the response you quoted was not directed at you but rather to Joe the racist fuck.

Are your sock puppets getting mixed up?

It certainly stopped the Thompson in it's tracks but it took about 10 years of aggressive law enforcement and community involvement to get it done. I you trying to tell me that your Grand and Great Grands were smarter than you are?

They were certainly smarter than you because they all knew the Bill of Rights was a part of the constitution

Hate to break it to you but the Bill of Rights influenced the Constitution but the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution. When you scream, "That's against the Bill of Rights" you are saying that a document of no legal standings actually means anything today. Now if you want to scream, "That''s Unconstitutional" and you used the whole of the Constitution to back it up then I'll support you. Until then, you are just crying in the wind. And your Grand and Greats were many times smarter than you. They understood that the 2nd amendment was not absolute.

You moron the Bill of rights was originally 10 amendments to the constitution and hence became part of the constitution when they were
ratified in 1791. ALL other amendments since then are also part of the Constitution.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think otherwise.



Scholastic News: Constitution Day

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you can almost completely eliminate 1% then you should do it. We have had more than our fair share and have done exactly that. It didn't take way my freedoms, my ability to buy guns and ammo, nothing. It did make it harder for fruitcakes to make their purchases though who always want to cheat the system. It appears that they are more likely to be the ones that do the mass shootings and the ones we, as a community, have to be more conscious of at any given time. If you feel that it's taken away any of your freedoms, maybe we should be watching you more closely as well.

And you could have left off the last sentence in response, you bigoted, redneck, KKK, Ultraright, prick.

Banning a rifle won't do that.

And you can't seem to comprehend that the response you quoted was not directed at you but rather to Joe the racist fuck.

Are your sock puppets getting mixed up?

It certainly stopped the Thompson in it's tracks but it took about 10 years of aggressive law enforcement and community involvement to get it done. I you trying to tell me that your Grand and Great Grands were smarter than you are?

They were certainly smarter than you because they all knew the Bill of Rights was a part of the constitution

Hate to break it to you but the Bill of Rights influenced the Constitution but the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution. When you scream, "That's against the Bill of Rights" you are saying that a document of no legal standings actually means anything today. Now if you want to scream, "That''s Unconstitutional" and you used the whole of the Constitution to back it up then I'll support you. Until then, you are just crying in the wind. And your Grand and Greats were many times smarter than you. They understood that the 2nd amendment was not absolute.

You moron the Bill of rights was originally 10 amendments to the constitution and hence became part of the constitution when they were
ratified in 1791. ALL other amendments since then are also part of the Constitution.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think otherwise.



Scholastic News: Constitution Day

Then say you support the Constitution. And then support the whole document. The Bill of rights doesn't have the other Amendments of the Constitution therefore has no legal binding meaning. Yes, the Constitution is based on it but only the Constitution has a valid legal standing.

But you just want to ignore the whole constitution because it gets in the way of your narrow little world.

 

[Rustic]

You guys?

You seem incapable of directing any comments to an individual.

I have never once mentioned the race of anyone. You have and in a disparaging manner.

And FYI people have owned guns long before the NRA ever existed.

You are the one who said it was okay that we have so much gun violence because most of it is in the inner cities.

We have never had so many guns as we have now. And while in the past, guns were for practical things like hunting, today, the gun industry realizes that it's market is gun nuts and criminals and that's who they market to. Just like the Alcohol industry markets to drunks.

People kill people firearms cannot

 

[Blues Man]

Banning a rifle won't do that.

And you can't seem to comprehend that the response you quoted was not directed at you but rather to Joe the racist fuck.

Are your sock puppets getting mixed up?

It certainly stopped the Thompson in it's tracks but it took about 10 years of aggressive law enforcement and community involvement to get it done. I you trying to tell me that your Grand and Great Grands were smarter than you are?

They were certainly smarter than you because they all knew the Bill of Rights was a part of the constitution

Hate to break it to you but the Bill of Rights influenced the Constitution but the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution. When you scream, "That's against the Bill of Rights" you are saying that a document of no legal standings actually means anything today. Now if you want to scream, "That''s Unconstitutional" and you used the whole of the Constitution to back it up then I'll support you. Until then, you are just crying in the wind. And your Grand and Greats were many times smarter than you. They understood that the 2nd amendment was not absolute.

You moron the Bill of rights was originally 10 amendments to the constitution and hence became part of the constitution when they were
ratified in 1791. ALL other amendments since then are also part of the Constitution.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think otherwise.



Scholastic News: Constitution Day

Then say you support the Constitution. And then support the whole document. The Bill of rights doesn't have the other Amendments of the Constitution therefore has no legal binding meaning. Yes, the Constitution is based on it but only the Constitution has a valid legal standing.

But you just want to ignore the whole constitution because it gets in the way of your narrow little world.

Shake the brick dust out of your head

The Bill of Rights is a collection of amendments that were ratified simultaneously ( that means at the same time) and each of those amendments has been part of the Constitution since 1791 as is every other amendment since. So when you say you support the "entire Constitution" you are supporting ALL the amendments ever added to the Constitution including the 10 that are the original Bill of Rights.

So you're insistence that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution is 100% WRONG and that you refuse to admit it is a sign of your special form of STUPID

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You guys?

You seem incapable of directing any comments to an individual.

I have never once mentioned the race of anyone. You have and in a disparaging manner.

And FYI people have owned guns long before the NRA ever existed.

You are the one who said it was okay that we have so much gun violence because most of it is in the inner cities.

We have never had so many guns as we have now. And while in the past, guns were for practical things like hunting, today, the gun industry realizes that it's market is gun nuts and criminals and that's who they market to. Just like the Alcohol industry markets to drunks.

People kill people firearms cannot

You really need to put that gun down for a bit. Your Gunnutter intoxication is causing you to slur your words and scramble your sentences. You do know that your last sentence doesn't have any meaning to it, don't you?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It certainly stopped the Thompson in it's tracks but it took about 10 years of aggressive law enforcement and community involvement to get it done. I you trying to tell me that your Grand and Great Grands were smarter than you are?

They were certainly smarter than you because they all knew the Bill of Rights was a part of the constitution

Hate to break it to you but the Bill of Rights influenced the Constitution but the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution. When you scream, "That's against the Bill of Rights" you are saying that a document of no legal standings actually means anything today. Now if you want to scream, "That''s Unconstitutional" and you used the whole of the Constitution to back it up then I'll support you. Until then, you are just crying in the wind. And your Grand and Greats were many times smarter than you. They understood that the 2nd amendment was not absolute.

You moron the Bill of rights was originally 10 amendments to the constitution and hence became part of the constitution when they were
ratified in 1791. ALL other amendments since then are also part of the Constitution.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think otherwise.



Scholastic News: Constitution Day

Then say you support the Constitution. And then support the whole document. The Bill of rights doesn't have the other Amendments of the Constitution therefore has no legal binding meaning. Yes, the Constitution is based on it but only the Constitution has a valid legal standing.

But you just want to ignore the whole constitution because it gets in the way of your narrow little world.

Shake the brick dust out of your head

The Bill of Rights is a collection of amendments that were ratified simultaneously ( that means at the same time) and each of those amendments has been part of the Constitution since 1791 as is every other amendment since. So when you say you support the "entire Constitution" you are supporting ALL the amendments ever added to the Constitution including the 10 that are the original Bill of Rights.

So you're insistence that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution is 100% WRONG and that you refuse to admit it is a sign of your special form of STUPID

There were enough changes to the bill or rights that they even changed the name to the Constitution of the United States. Gee, I wonder why that was? Madison got some changes in there that the Bill of Rights didn't cover. The Bill of Rights were designed to deal with kings, not a Federal Republic. You seem to leave out the various clauses that were added throughout the basic bill of rights that clearly modified it. It may have been the starting point but the ending point was the Constitution of the United States. Plus, there were some clauses in the Bill of Rights that were struck down. In the end, only if you completely ignore the clauses, can you say the bill of rights is the law of the land. And you have to disregard the other amendments as well. Even before the Bill of Rights was approved,, it was changed enough it could no longer be considered the law of the land. Only the document that influenced the Constitution.

If you want to only follow just the headers of the first 10 amendments, disregard the other amendments and throw out the clauses added and subtracted, then you might have a case. Until then, the Bill of Rights has no legal standings and the Constitution of the United States is the land of the law.

Enough of you.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would anyone oppose a firearm ID card?

Makes buying a gun easier. Just show your ID and you are out the door

 

[2aguy]

Why would anyone oppose a firearm ID card?

Makes buying a gun easier. Just show your ID and you are out the door

1) Criminals don't get them.....so it doesn't stop criminals from getting illegal guns.

2) If they aren't free, they are unConstitutional, since you can't charge a tax for the exercise of a Right.

3) If it is required to simply exercise a Right, it is unConstitutional.

4) They won't stop mass public shooters, who will get them, then buy guns, then shoot innocent people.

Other than those 4 things, why would anyone want to pay money to exercise a Right?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

what if i self identify as a sig?

 

[rightwinger]

Why would anyone oppose a firearm ID card?

Makes buying a gun easier. Just show your ID and you are out the door

1) Criminals don't get them.....so it doesn't stop criminals from getting illegal guns.

2) If they aren't free, they are unConstitutional, since you can't charge a tax for the exercise of a Right.

3) If it is required to simply exercise a Right, it is unConstitutional.

4) They won't stop mass public shooters, who will get them, then buy guns, then shoot innocent people.

Other than those 4 things, why would anyone want to pay money to exercise a Right?

What does that have to do with you?

Want to buy a gun, swipe your card and you are out the door
Makes your life easier

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Why would anyone oppose a firearm ID card?

Makes buying a gun easier. Just show your ID and you are out the door

1) Criminals don't get them.....so it doesn't stop criminals from getting illegal guns.

2) If they aren't free, they are unConstitutional, since you can't charge a tax for the exercise of a Right.

3) If it is required to simply exercise a Right, it is unConstitutional.

4) They won't stop mass public shooters, who will get them, then buy guns, then shoot innocent people.

Other than those 4 things, why would anyone want to pay money to exercise a Right?

You leave out all the other things that go with it. You always just take one small part and say, hey, this won't work because it's not enough. Well, put it with the rest of the package it it is. And it's all done without taking away your right to buy guns. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support the firearms ID card one bit. It's not needed but all the rest of the common sense firearms regulations are and they do the most good taking away not one single firearms right.

Careful, there might be another oak leaf cluster waiting for you if you keep going down this path. You could have just said it wasn't necessary.

 

[JoeB131]

Where did I say it was OK? If you're going to tell me what I said use the quote function. Don't fabricate a statement, attribute it to me than argue against that fabrication

Sureh... here's what you said.

The majority of which occurred in urban shit holes with illegally possessed firearms

See, you said it was perfectly fine that all the darkies in the "Urban Shitholes" were the victims of gun violence.

I said that is where most violence occurs and that most of the firearms used are illegally obtained.

That is a statement of fact, there is no judgement attached

I think when you called them "Urban Shitholes', you demonstrated your racism pretty well. It's okay they are being murdered because they live in Urban Shitholes...

And when one of these cities try to ban guns, your side is the first one to take them to court screaming that the Founding Slave Rapists wanted every young street gang to have a machine gun with a 100 round clip because Freedom or something.

 

[Blues Man]

They were certainly smarter than you because they all knew the Bill of Rights was a part of the constitution

Hate to break it to you but the Bill of Rights influenced the Constitution but the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution. When you scream, "That's against the Bill of Rights" you are saying that a document of no legal standings actually means anything today. Now if you want to scream, "That''s Unconstitutional" and you used the whole of the Constitution to back it up then I'll support you. Until then, you are just crying in the wind. And your Grand and Greats were many times smarter than you. They understood that the 2nd amendment was not absolute.

You moron the Bill of rights was originally 10 amendments to the constitution and hence became part of the constitution when they were
ratified in 1791. ALL other amendments since then are also part of the Constitution.

You are a special kind of stupid if you think otherwise.



Scholastic News: Constitution Day

Then say you support the Constitution. And then support the whole document. The Bill of rights doesn't have the other Amendments of the Constitution therefore has no legal binding meaning. Yes, the Constitution is based on it but only the Constitution has a valid legal standing.

But you just want to ignore the whole constitution because it gets in the way of your narrow little world.

Shake the brick dust out of your head

The Bill of Rights is a collection of amendments that were ratified simultaneously ( that means at the same time) and each of those amendments has been part of the Constitution since 1791 as is every other amendment since. So when you say you support the "entire Constitution" you are supporting ALL the amendments ever added to the Constitution including the 10 that are the original Bill of Rights.

So you're insistence that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution is 100% WRONG and that you refuse to admit it is a sign of your special form of STUPID

There were enough changes to the bill or rights that they even changed the name to the Constitution of the United States. Gee, I wonder why that was? Madison got some changes in there that the Bill of Rights didn't cover. The Bill of Rights were designed to deal with kings, not a Federal Republic. You seem to leave out the various clauses that were added throughout the basic bill of rights that clearly modified it. It may have been the starting point but the ending point was the Constitution of the United States. Plus, there were some clauses in the Bill of Rights that were struck down. In the end, only if you completely ignore the clauses, can you say the bill of rights is the law of the land. And you have to disregard the other amendments as well. Even before the Bill of Rights was approved,, it was changed enough it could no longer be considered the law of the land. Only the document that influenced the Constitution.

If you want to only follow just the headers of the first 10 amendments, disregard the other amendments and throw out the clauses added and subtracted, then you might have a case. Until then, the Bill of Rights has no legal standings and the Constitution of the United States is the land of the law.

Enough of you.

I don't know where you got your education in history.

The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with kings.

I never i,plied the Bill of Rights superseded the Constitution. The fact is that the majority of the Constitution deals with the branches of governments and the powers granted to each. In a discussion of the rights of the people those sections of the Constitution are not relevant. Do you really think Articles 1-3 have anything to do with the discussion on gun rights?

And you're the one who started this whole argument when you said the Bill of Rights wasn't part of the Constitution

 

[Blues Man]

Where did I say it was OK? If you're going to tell me what I said use the quote function. Don't fabricate a statement, attribute it to me than argue against that fabrication

Sureh... here's what you said.

The majority of which occurred in urban shit holes with illegally possessed firearms

See, you said it was perfectly fine that all the darkies in the "Urban Shitholes" were the victims of gun violence.

I said that is where most violence occurs and that most of the firearms used are illegally obtained.

That is a statement of fact, there is no judgement attached

I think when you called them "Urban Shitholes', you demonstrated your racism pretty well. It's okay they are being murdered because they live in Urban Shitholes...

And when one of these cities try to ban guns, your side is the first one to take them to court screaming that the Founding Slave Rapists wanted every young street gang to have a machine gun with a 100 round clip because Freedom or something.

There you go making shit up again.

I never once mentioned race.

And fyi there are all people from all races living in urban shit holes

And where did I say it was OK that people are being murdered anywhere?

Banning guns won't stop the illegal trafficking of guns.

And tell me why should anyone who is not legally prohibited from pwning firearms be told they can't own a firearm just because someone else obtains a gun illegally?

Can I take your drivers license away because someone else drives drunk?

 

[JoeB131]

There you go making shit up again.

I never once mentioned race.

You said Urban Shitholes.. everyone knew exactly what you meant.

Banning guns won't stop the illegal trafficking of guns.

Um.. yeah, about that. The UK, France, Japan, Italy have all banned guns... and they don't have anywhere near the problems we have. Germany didn't ban guns, but it isn't a "right" and they are very selective in who they let own them, and they don't have anywhere near the problems we have.

So banning guns won't stop the illegal trafficking of guns, except in every country that has banned guns and have done exactly that.

And tell me why should anyone who is not legally prohibited from pwning firearms be told they can't own a firearm just because someone else obtains a gun illegally?

Because when guns are obtained illegally, they start their life with someone who did obtain them legally. Theft or resale, most guns start as "legal".

Can I take your drivers license away because someone else drives drunk?

Well, let's look at that argument.

To operate a car, I have to be licensed.
The car has to be registered and insured.
We have massive amounts of regulations, signs, cameras, police officers regulating when and where we use our cars.
The car has to meet a whole lot of regulations about performance, noise emission, pollution standards and so on.
Certain kinds of vehicles require a higher standard of licensing

Oh, yeah, and we have BASSET rules that bartenders can't keep pouring you drinks until you get sloppy drunk and go out and drive.

Now, let's not forget, the whole subject of this thread was "Oh my God, the Illinois FOID card has been ruled unconstitutional!" because IL tried to at least track who has guns.

"BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED!!!!!" screech the gun nuts.

No, they didn't think cars would be a thing, so thankfully we can regulate them so that everyone can get on the road with thousands of other cars and know that some unlicensed jerk with an unlicensed car isn't going to drive out on the road after drinking 80 Proof Skullcracker and kill them.

Does this still happen? Yup. But a lot less than if we had no rules on cars because someone interpreted the constitution in a stupid way

Also, the Auto Industry and Liquor industry, say what you want about them, have strove to make their products safer and use them more repsonsiblity.

The Gun Industry is doing pretty much the opposite of that. More guns. more powerful guns. Less restrictions. Marketed to the craziest people out there.

Ever wonder why?

Hint, because scary darkies with gun will make you all scared, too. And want to buy more guns.