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

[kaz]

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?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text. Yes or no?

Not be infringed means no restrictions on citizens who haven't had their freedoms limited with the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. You're making a clown argument, bro

 

[kaz]

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

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."

Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law. That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant. You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?

Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.

Then why does it say our property is protected if it doesn't mean that?

 

[kaz]

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?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text. Yes or no?

The Right of the PEOPLE, once you have violated another persons rights you are no longer "of the PEOPLE". Understand?

He understands fine, he's being an eight year old

 

[danielpalos]

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

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."

Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law. That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant. You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?

Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.

Then why does it say our property is protected if it doesn't mean that?

It doesn't; it says it is Only protected by Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

The People is ambiguous since the People are the Militia.

An interesting read:

The Dick Act and Gun Control - The Volokh Conspiracy

Here is the relevant Part:

The Dick Act gave formal federal recognition—and financial support—to the National Guard, which had begun as a volunteer state-based civic organization after the Civil War. According to the Dick Act, the ‘‘organized militia’’ of the United States is the National Guard, plus Naval Militias maintained by some states. 10 U.S.C. §311(b)(1).

 

[kaz]

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

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."

Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law. That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant. You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?

Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.

Then why does it say our property is protected if it doesn't mean that?

It doesn't; it says it is Only protected by Due Process.

Are you being an eight year old on purpose or are you actually that much of a simpleton?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."

Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law. That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant. You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?

Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.

Then why does it say our property is protected if it doesn't mean that?

It doesn't; it says it is Only protected by Due Process.

Are you being an eight year old on purpose or are you actually that much of a simpleton?

Are you so full of fallacy that you have nothing but diversion?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
Keep up the good work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed,

Did you pass your American Government class?
Due process can remove peoples' rights - says so right in the bill of rights.
The state cannot infringe on a right that someone does not have.

 

[Bonzi]

People that kill are nuts.
People that are nuts will find a way to kill if they really want to.
Guns or not.

Just another case of the Government/Media distracting us with nonsense and telling us what to care about...

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text. Yes or no?

Not be infringed means no restrictions on citizens who haven't had their freedoms limited with the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. You're making a clown argument, bro

It's not my argument, sis.

Textualism is a theory of statutory interpretation that holds that a statute's original meaning as evidenced in its text should govern how judges interpret the statute, as opposed to alternative methods of statutory interpretation such as inquiring into historical sources in attempt to discover the intent of the legislative body that approved the statute.[1]

Textualism is consistent with the Plain Meaning Rule, which says that interpreters of statutes ought to interpret what a statute says according to its "plain meaning."

"Textualism" can also refer to a set of practical techniques used by some noted jurists to nail down the meaning of a statute through close consideration of its text.[2]

Associate Justice of the United States Antonin Scalia is considered to be a textualist and an originalist.

Scalia criticizes federal judges whose intent is to disregard the text of the Constitution or statutes and to adopt what he called “the attitude of the common-law judge, the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’” Scalia condemns this trend as many judges have a tendency to treat the Constitution as “Living Constitution." Scalia has always urged judges instead to adopt a textualist approach where, in which the letter of the law according to Scalia "is guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time".[4]

Link to above:

Textualism - Ballotpedia

 

[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...

So is guile.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
Keep up the good work.

People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others. The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.

The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.

Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.

 

[kaz]

The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual. In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms. They are inherently dangerous. Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.

So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. Good to know.

Not what I said is it. No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked. The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government. We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to lose their rights. There was a reason for that.

But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text. Yes or no?

Not be infringed means no restrictions on citizens who haven't had their freedoms limited with the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. You're making a clown argument, bro

It's not my argument, sis.

Textualism is a theory of statutory interpretation that holds that a statute's original meaning as evidenced in its text should govern how judges interpret the statute, as opposed to alternative methods of statutory interpretation such as inquiring into historical sources in attempt to discover the intent of the legislative body that approved the statute.[1]

Textualism is consistent with the Plain Meaning Rule, which says that interpreters of statutes ought to interpret what a statute says according to its "plain meaning."

"Textualism" can also refer to a set of practical techniques used by some noted jurists to nail down the meaning of a statute through close consideration of its text.[2]

Associate Justice of the United States Antonin Scalia is considered to be a textualist and an originalist.

Scalia criticizes federal judges whose intent is to disregard the text of the Constitution or statutes and to adopt what he called “the attitude of the common-law judge, the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’” Scalia condemns this trend as many judges have a tendency to treat the Constitution as “Living Constitution." Scalia has always urged judges instead to adopt a textualist approach where, in which the letter of the law according to Scalia "is guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time".[4]

Link to above:

Textualism - Ballotpedia

That has nothing to do with the point, kiddie poo. Due process is in the bill of rights, it's not re-reading the text later.

Unabridged in the case of guns means that citizens who's rights have not been limited through due process of law are not restricted.

It does not mean those who's rights have been restricted can't be restricted.

Why don't you have a clown avatar like all the other idiot liberals making clown arguments?

 

[kaz]

^^^
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

Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
Keep up the good work.

People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others. The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.

The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.

Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.

The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy. A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is

 

[Wry Catcher]

People that kill are nuts.
People that are nuts will find a way to kill if they really want to.
Guns or not.

Just another case of the Government/Media distracting us with nonsense and telling us what to care about...

"Nuts" meaning mentally unstable maybe true, but why provide a gun to a mentally unstable person - either unwittingly or with intent to profit?

I'm pretty sure most of us would much rather be confronted by a nut with a weapon other than a gun - one cannot block a magazine of ten or more rounds from 10 feet away, but give the nut a weapon which brings him into striking distance and 1) they may think twice and 2) the intended victim has an opportunity to not only survive but to apply great bodily harm to the assailant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
Keep up the good work.

People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others. The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.

The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.

Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.

The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy. A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is

My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.

Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.

One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.

 

[kaz]

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.
^^^
Projection

^^^
Denial

Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
Keep up the good work.

People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others. The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.

The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.

Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.

The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy. A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is

My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.

Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.

One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.

That's classic. I responded to a post you called me "sis" by calling you gay and you respond wit this: "Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."

What a retard

 

[Koheleth]

Liberals have no plan other then crying for new gun laws. What they fail to state is that each state has their own gun laws as we'll as the federal govt in place that are written so that unlawful citizens cannot purchase legal guns. The laws are in place for law abiding citizens. Criminals will never abide by such laws. No new law will stop a criminal from using a gun to commit a criminal act. Liberals don't want new laws they want our guns. The 2 amendment was written so that we the American citizens could protect ourselves against tyranny.

 

[Wry Catcher]

^^^
Denial

Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
Keep up the good work.

People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others. The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.

The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.

Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.

The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy. A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is

My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.

Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.

One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.

That's classic. I responded to a post you called me "sis" by calling you gay and you respond wit this: "Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."

What a retard

What goes around, comes around, sis. You choose to patronize, I'll come back with the same crap. I'm not your bro; you may address me as "sir" or Mr. Catcher, you should know your place.

"What a retard"? A classic example of someone who posts without thinking and in doing so proves one of my points, to wit: "it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."