Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[71sportstourer]

[/QUOTE] then again if you ever bothered to read what madison described a well regulated militia to be you see it even give more credence to the fact his intent was that citizens be as well armed as the government.[/QUOTE]

Spoonman, another representative of the right who can't post a text without calling someone an idiot? Does rudeness make you popular with the ladies?

I've read what Madison wrote. There's nothing in it about citizens carrying handguns in public for personal protection, for one. Nor is there anything in the second amendment that says it.

 

[BlackSand]

I've read what Madison wrote. There's nothing in it about citizens carrying handguns in public for personal protection, for one. Nor is there anything in the second amendment that says it.

That's because the right to carry a handgun in public for personal protection is covered by states laws ... And isn't in the 2nd Amendment.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

Conservatives logic when it comes to guns: abolish traffic laws because automobile accidents are still happening.

Liberal logic when it comes to gun: We can keep criminals from killing innocent people by disarming innocent people.

 

[Ernie S.]

The fact is the NRA and gun nuts argument is that gun control and ample gun rights can't co-exist in the same time and place.

I might buy that if Canada, which has huge numbers of armed sportsmen (a very high per capita firearms ownership ratio) at the same time didn't also have, compared to the paltry background check expansions Dems have proposed, extremely tight gun control.

So, on this issue the right is clearly lying, extreme, etc.

Does Canada have the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Ernie S.]

Trouble with this one is... smoking doesn't affect the smoker only. It fucks up the entire room. My mother died of lung cancer. She wasn't a smoker. I don't think a random smoker has the right to kill my mother. Do you?

Who was this random smoker? You do realize there are other causes of lung cancer besides smoking. Beryllium for example. Was she ever exposed to beryllium?
One speck of it in your lung and you WILL get lung cancer.

 

[Ernie S.]

then again if you ever bothered to read what madison described a well regulated militia to be you see it even give more credence to the fact his intent was that citizens be as well armed as the government.

Spoonman, another representative of the right who can't post a text without calling someone an idiot? Does rudeness make you popular with the ladies?

I've read what Madison wrote. There's nothing in it about citizens carrying handguns in public for personal protection, for one. Nor is there anything in the second amendment that says it.

Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment? It says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Forbidding a law abiding citizen to carry a weapon, handgun, stotgun, rifle, scary looking pseudo-military styled semi-automatic carbine or whatever SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If you like, I will provide a link to a definition of "infringed".

 

[71sportstourer]

Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.

But in your world, where the filling out of paperwork, or a minor inconvenience = tyranny, that's no surprise.

 

[BlackSand]

Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.

But in your world, where the filling out of paperwork, or a minor inconvenience = tyranny, that's no surprise.

Are you trying to say that you making up crap that isn't written based on your nefarious intentions and personal desire ... Is somehow superior to a proper understanding of what is written and plain enough to read?
I mean you are the only one trying to change the intent of things around here ... Everyone else understands.

.

 

[71sportstourer]

Nice to know that you speak for everyone around here, and in all caps, Blacksand. You seem to believe that shouting makes you right. And you never answered the questions about whether being rude and insulting makes you popular with the ladies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Conservatives logic when it comes to guns: abolish traffic laws because automobile accidents are still happening.

Thank you for supporting the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emoton, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact is the NRA and gun nuts argument is that gun control and ample gun rights can't co-exist in the same time and place.

Tell me: are you lying, or are you really -that- ignorant?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Quoting the first half of the second amendment, as the right does incessantly, is "not the freaking Constitution."

This made me laugh so hard, I blew Pepsi all ovr my monitor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Doesn't bug me in the least. Because, in the long run, they'll lose, as liars and zealots do, and I'm happy not to be one of them.

As they. like you, can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, the only liars and zealots here are the anti-gun loons.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.

But in your world, where the filling out of paperwork, or a minor inconvenience = tyranny, that's no surprise.

Heller v. DC affirms 2A right as individual free from militia service.

McDonald v. Chicago incorporated Heller to the States.

My State constitution affirms the right to possess and carry.

Check and Mate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.

Fact:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Now, you can hate that fact all you want, but topretend that it is not a fact only means you're lying to yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.

But in your world, where the filling out of paperwork, or a minor inconvenience = tyranny, that's no surprise.

Jake, get a life

 

[BlackSand]

Nice to know that you speak for everyone around here, and in all caps, Blacksand. You seem to believe that shouting makes you right. And you never answered the questions about whether being rude and insulting makes you popular with the ladies.

Nah ... I just highlight parts in case you want to skip over them trying to remain blind ... And they aren't in all caps either ... See if the bold parts here make a dent.

The 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution identifies the right of citizens to bare arms … Then goes on to designate the Federal Government's responsibilities and powers.
Settled law has also added the ability to remove the right to bare arms from … Felons convicted of Federal Crimes … After due process.
Since then … Some Federal regulations have limited the certain weapons from being available to the public at large … And exceptions for the mentally ill.

The other laws that determine … Who can carry … What they can carry … And how they can carry it … Are determined by State Legislatures or Constitutions. … Which is why they are different from State to State.

Here is what the Louisiana State Constitution says about the right to bear arms … And it was ratified with a 75% margin recently:

"The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes,
is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny."

Now argue with that ...

.

 

[Pogo]

When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.

They did, that's true, and it's a major blot on the face of liberty. But two things: (a) I don't think those road searches were inspired by drunk driving, and (b) I don't think that's what the poster meant; he said "When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened". Meaning the BAL. That's hardly the same thing as a Gestapo roadblock.



Trouble with this one is... smoking doesn't affect the smoker only. It fucks up the entire room. My mother died of lung cancer. She wasn't a smoker. I don't think a random smoker has the right to kill my mother. Do you?

As for the "punitive" tax... Fuck 'em. If they're going to self-destruct in a completely selfish act, let's get something productive out of 'em.



This point would appear not to apply after the first two points...

The poster's actual line "conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson" as I read it draws a distinction between, on the one hand the social mores being modified by popular consent to address social problems in the case of drunk driving and smoking (both of which kill bystanders) and on the other hand, gun violence. I'm not sure what Jefferson talk he's referring to, but his point is whereas we took on drunk driving and public smoking, conservatives go silent on this one. In effect he's turning the OP around and asking "conservatives, what is your plan?". That's my take.

Edit:
Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.

.

Jefferson drove drunk? You're perhaps thinking of Franklin Pierce.
And where's your background on his smoking?

That's what I keep saying ... It is the freaking Constitution that makes it so it doesn't matter how good you think one thing or another may be ... It isn't the business of the government.
Of course don't get the idea that I ever thought you would understand ... I mean you made a comment and Thomas Jefferson and drivin drunk ... When it is obvious he didn't give a damn because there weren't any cars.

--- Then why did you suggest there were?
It was your idea dood -- not mine. Same with the smoking.

You would do better sitting in front of a mirror and arguing with yourself.

I often get that impression with some people.

And if I may offer a tip in return, you'd look less silly imagining that boldface makes your posts somehow superior.

 

[BlackSand]

And if I may offer a tip in return, you'd look less silly imagining that boldface makes your posts somehow superior.

I thank you for the tip ... But that is your way of looking at it not mine.

I often do it because it breaks up the monotony of endless fine print ... As well as even further separates the thoughts.
To me it is more visually appealing as far as aesthetic purposes alone ... And has nothing to do with any thoughts of superiority or anger.

I believe that your misconceptions are founded in your own fears of inadequacy.

See how that separates that thought from "why I do it" ... And makes the transition to "why I think it bothers you enough to comment on it".

Have A Good Evening ... It's Been A Pleasure (woo ... watch out, used caps there too)

.

 

[Pogo]

And if I may offer a tip in return, you'd look less silly imagining that boldface makes your posts somehow superior.

I thank you for the tip ... But that is your way of looking at it not mine.

I often do it because it breaks up the monotony of endless fine print ... As well as even further separates the thoughts.
To me it is more visually appealing as far as aesthetic purposes alone ... And has nothing to do with any thoughts of superiority or anger.

I believe that your misconceptions are founded in your own fears of inadequacy.

See how that separates that thought from "why I do it" ... And makes the transition to "why I think it bothers you enough to comment on it".

Have A Good Evening ... It's Been A Pleasure (woo ... watch out, used caps there too)

.

Well, on the internet it's shouting, so it's not "my" way of looking at it -- it's everybody's.
I'm surprised you don't know that. Perhaps what you need is an optometrist.

You also have this really weird habit of putting a carriage return and period at the end of every post. Some kind of fermata? That's a head scratcher.

Finally I can't help noticing your post is entirely about you and not at all about the topic, which in the moment was that drunk smoker Thomas Jefferson.

Oh well, we all have our priorities...