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

[M14 Shooter]

Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.

Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.

See how easy it is to post sans evidence. Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.

Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.

I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face. Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.

Nah.
You'd run away.
Just like you do from honest and open debates.

There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.

^^^
You and I both know that this is a lie.
Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.

See how easy it is to post sans evidence. Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.

Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.

I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face. Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.

Nah.
You'd run away.
Just like you do from honest and open debates.

There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.

^^^
You and I both know that this is a lie.
Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.

It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged. You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.

 

[Ernie S.]

I haven't taken rye drinker seriously in years.

Denial. It's a mental disorder!

Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.

See how easy it is to post sans evidence. Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.

Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.

I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face. Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.

Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?

Confused dishonest Communist/Progressive. Goes on whining just like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy who knows nothing about firearms. Yet then boasts about he or she owning firearms. Lost credibility. Can't take that poster seriously anymore.

That's fine, as you come from the fringe of the fringe, I've never taken you seriously; as someone who has never posted a sagacious comment, I usually skip by your callowness.

You want sagacious? Try posting something intellectually challenging or in some way worthy of the effort.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.

I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face. Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.

Nah.
You'd run away.
Just like you do from honest and open debates.

There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.

^^^
You and I both know that this is a lie.
Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.

It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged

This is a lie.
Disagree?
There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig. You know where to find me.

You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.

^^^
Projection

 

[Wry Catcher]

I haven't taken rye drinker seriously in years.

Denial. It's a mental disorder!

Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.

I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face. Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.

Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?

Confused dishonest Communist/Progressive. Goes on whining just like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy who knows nothing about firearms. Yet then boasts about he or she owning firearms. Lost credibility. Can't take that poster seriously anymore.

That's fine, as you come from the fringe of the fringe, I've never taken you seriously; as someone who has never posted a sagacious comment, I usually skip by your callowness.

You want sagacious? Try posting something intellectually challenging or in some way worthy of the effort.

I have, often; the response from your kind is always an idiot-gram and / or an ad hominem - usually both.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face. Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.

Nah.
You'd run away.
Just like you do from honest and open debates.

There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.

^^^
You and I both know that this is a lie.
Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.

It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged

This is a lie.
Disagree?
There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig. You know where to find me.

You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.

^^^
Projection

^^^
Denial

 

[2aguy]

Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models. They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here. Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.

UK has bad issues with baseball bat gangs. They beat people to death, coma, brain damage, or cripple. I'd rather be shot.
Pregnant woman attacked by gang while she was GIVING BIRTH in Basildon Essex Daily Mail Online
Gang of thugs armed with baseball bats cause mass panic on commuter train after smashing windows in terrifying attack Daily Mail Online
BBC NEWS UK Full list of teen killings
Statistics Prove More Guns Less Crime Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Guns are in fact the equalizer....they allow the weak, the small, women, the injured, the handicapped, and senior citizens defend themselves,against younger, stronger, more aggressive armed and unarmed attackers who attack as individuals or in groups.....it is police policy in Britain to warn the citizens of Britain not to resist their attackers..to submit quietly....

I also remember an article where the government did not want people calling for help because they didn't want bystanders getting involved by fighting the criminal....I am not kidding......

so the gun grabbers who say...if we didn't have guns we wouldn't have the violence levels we have today......and that is a crock of shit.....


For most of human civilization we didn't have guns...and the strong used swords, axes, spears, and arrows to murder and enslave the weak........

Guns gave the weak a chance to survive and defeat those attackers...

 

[danielpalos]

Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models. They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here. Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.

UK has bad issues with baseball bat gangs. They beat people to death, coma, brain damage, or cripple. I'd rather be shot.
Pregnant woman attacked by gang while she was GIVING BIRTH in Basildon Essex Daily Mail Online
Gang of thugs armed with baseball bats cause mass panic on commuter train after smashing windows in terrifying attack Daily Mail Online
BBC NEWS UK Full list of teen killings
Statistics Prove More Guns Less Crime Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Guns are in fact the equalizer....they allow the weak, the small, women, the injured, the handicapped, and senior citizens defend themselves,against younger, stronger, more aggressive armed and unarmed attackers who attack as individuals or in groups.....it is police policy in Britain to warn the citizens of Britain not to resist their attackers..to submit quietly....

I also remember an article where the government did not want people calling for help because they didn't want bystanders getting involved by fighting the criminal....I am not kidding......

so the gun grabbers who say...if we didn't have guns we wouldn't have the violence levels we have today......and that is a crock of shit.....


For most of human civilization we didn't have guns...and the strong used swords, axes, spears, and arrows to murder and enslave the weak........

Guns gave the weak a chance to survive and defeat those attackers...

I believe County law enforcement may be lax in the custom, habit, and moral of "commandeering" gun lovers without any clue or Cause, and giving them one merely to establish that authority.

 

[paulitician]

I haven't taken rye drinker seriously in years.

Denial. It's a mental disorder!

Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.

See how easy it is to post sans evidence. Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.

Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.

I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face. Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.

Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?

Confused dishonest Communist/Progressive. Goes on whining just like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy who knows nothing about firearms. Yet then boasts about he or she owning firearms. Lost credibility. Can't take that poster seriously anymore.

That's fine, as you come from the fringe of the fringe, I've never taken you seriously; as someone who has never posted a sagacious comment, I usually skip by your callowness.

You're confused and dishonest. You're dismissed.

 

[kaz]

Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution. Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level. From the fifth amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

 

[kaz]

That makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?

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
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.

That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court, One vote swing and it will change, as it should.

I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.

You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.

I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.

It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun. All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.

Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.

So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.

I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.

Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.

Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.

Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,

"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."

for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

 

[kaz]

Just focus on attacking the criminals who have guns. Stop focusing on attacking law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms the legal right way. Politicians and Law Enforcement need to stop being lazy and incompetent. They're paid to go after the criminals, not law abiding Citizens. Just get the job done. Period, end of story.

It's easier for them to just try to disarm everyone

 

[kaz]

Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?

I don't know, why don't you ask one?

Allowing someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?

Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability. If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable. Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.

BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.

Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.

Me too. Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.

Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds. The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.

Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.

Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.

See how easy it is to post sans evidence. Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.

Those are your normal fare, I didn't even realize you were kidding until you said you were

 

[danielpalos]

Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution. Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level. From the fifth amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.

 

[kaz]

Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution. Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level. From the fifth amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.

I responded to the point you made regarding private property.

The Bill of Rights regards individual rights. Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards

 

[danielpalos]

Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution. Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level. From the fifth amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.

I responded to the point you made regarding private property.

The Bill of Rights regards individual rights. Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.

 

[kaz]

Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution. Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level. From the fifth amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.

I responded to the point you made regarding private property.

The Bill of Rights regards individual rights. Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.

So you think removing property rights only with due process of law is "quibbling?" That just stupid, even for Canadians. Have you been drinking Canadian Whiskey? You know it's barely past noon

 

[danielpalos]

Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution. Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level. From the fifth amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.

I responded to the point you made regarding private property.

The Bill of Rights regards individual rights. Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.

So you think removing property rights only with due process of law is "quibbling?" That just stupid, even for Canadians. Have you been drinking Canadian Whiskey? You know it's barely past noon

Nothing but Northern diversions?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

I would like to take this time and opportunity to nominate Kaz for a position of Ambassador regarding gender relations and happy campers, in Canada.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?

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
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.

That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court, One vote swing and it will change, as it should.

I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.

You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.

I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.

It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun. All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.

Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.

So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.

I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.

Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.

Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.

Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,

"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."

for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.

Again, your felon argument is irrelevant. Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law. So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?

There are two responses to this statement:

1. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
2. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?