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

[kaz]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.

Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"

In so many words, no. Yet one can make that inference from comments posted by M14 Shooter, 2aguy and several others who use the Second Amendment's language as a rebuttal to gun control.

Um..no... you can't. We are talking about citizens who have committed no crime, you are arguing that means we want criminals to have no limit on their right to buy guns. We keep saying you are wrong, you keep repeating it anyway.

We are having two different discussions. Yours is a delusional one with the voices in your head

 

[kaz]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

My points are consistent, Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They than fall back to equivocate the Second Amendment and declare, yes but that's not what the original intent was, the framers meant to say mentally disturbed people ought to have their RIGHT to bear arms infringed, and so should felons and so should former slaves (post emancipation, but still relevant).

BUT the Framers did not.

God, once again you lack basic reading skills. The militia is not an equivocation in that sentence, it is an explanation.

This is what it actually says. Because we need the militia, gun rights shall not be infringed. That is an explanation, it does not limit the right.

Here is how you are reading it with your elementary level reading.

Gun rights shall not be infringed if and only if the owner is in a militia as defined, regulated and approved by government and all fees charged by government are paid.


It doesn't say that, not at all...

 

[kaz]

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed

Actually, I've made the point multiple times that you have that right on your own property, on public property and on other people's private property only with permission.

You do not have that right on other people's property when they refuse permission and you do not have that right on actual government property without permission.

The distinction I'm drawing between public and government property is that public property is common property, the roads, etc. Government property would be property specifically for the purpose of conducting government business. For example, military bases, the courts, that sort of thing.

 

[danielpalos]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

My points are consistent, Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They than fall back to equivocate the Second Amendment and declare, yes but that's not what the original intent was, the framers meant to say mentally disturbed people ought to have their RIGHT to bear arms infringed, and so should felons and so should former slaves (post emancipation, but still relevant).

BUT the Framers did not.

God, once again you lack basic reading skills. The militia is not an equivocation in that sentence, it is an explanation.

This is what it actually says. Because we need the militia, gun rights shall not be infringed. That is an explanation, it does not limit the right.

Here is how you are reading it with your elementary level reading.

Gun rights shall not be infringed if and only if the owner is in a militia as defined, regulated and approved by government and all fees charged by government are paid.


It doesn't say that, not at all...

dear, the Intent and Purpose provides the context, should we need to quibble Terms, in legal venues.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?
... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.

Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"

yes, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I flew over Canada just a few hours ago on my way back to Europe, it's a big country

In doing so did you cogitate on typewriters, and wonder if they might float?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed

Actually, I've made the point multiple times that you have that right on your own property, on public property and on other people's private property only with permission.

You do not have that right on other people's property when they refuse permission and you do not have that right on actual government property without permission.

The distinction I'm drawing between public and government property is that public property is common property, the roads, etc. Government property would be property specifically for the purpose of conducting government business. For example, military bases, the courts, that sort of thing.

Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.

Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

If you were not blinded by bias you might be able to discern my opinion on gun control is not black and white.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

My points are consistent, Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They than fall back to equivocate the Second Amendment and declare, yes but that's not what the original intent was, the framers meant to say mentally disturbed people ought to have their RIGHT to bear arms infringed, and so should felons and so should former slaves (post emancipation, but still relevant).

BUT the Framers did not.

God, once again you lack basic reading skills. The militia is not an equivocation in that sentence, it is an explanation.

This is what it actually says. Because we need the militia, gun rights shall not be infringed. That is an explanation, it does not limit the right.

Here is how you are reading it with your elementary level reading.

Gun rights shall not be infringed if and only if the owner is in a militia as defined, regulated and approved by government and all fees charged by government are paid.


It doesn't say that, not at all...

That's your spin, and an echo of others; the argument goes on no matter what I think or you believe.

[I don't believe needing a license to own, possess or have a gun in one's possession is an infringement, it is less than requiring a teacher or a doctor a higher education, or a person to get a license to drive]

You cannot rephrase, rewrite or proffer any evidence that the wording of the Second Amendment means exactly how you want to interpret it.

Others smarter than your and better educated hold a different opinion, even the USSC rulings in Heller and McDonald were 5-4 - so don't pretend to be an expert, not only is that laughable, but makes you appear to be as ridiculous as are M14, 2aguy and the NRA.

 

[easyt65]

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

Arming Mexican Drug Cartels, Libyan and Syrian terror.... er, REBELS, amending the Constitution, and 'confiscating' law-abiding citizens' weapons....

Got it!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Straw, man. No one makes this argument.

My points are consistent,....

In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There's no ambiguity, as 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

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.

See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.

Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public

Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

If you were not blinded by bias you might be able to discern my opinion on gun control is not black and white.

Correct -- it is based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Straw, man. No one makes this argument.

My points are consistent,....

In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There's no ambiguity, as 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

Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.

AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.

SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Straw, man. No one makes this argument.

My points are consistent,....

In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There's no ambiguity, as 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

Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.

You refuse to accept settled law.
Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Straw, man. No one makes this argument.

My points are consistent,....

In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There's no ambiguity, as 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

Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.

AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.

SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language

M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.

 

[Rustic]

Bigger fish to fry, move on a nonissue.

By the way: buy more guns and ammo

 

[Ernie S.]

We have background checks already....and they don't work. Universal background checks won't work either.

My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....

(Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)

I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....

So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.

Learn to read. To vote you have to register. That is your background check. There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.

I'm registered to vote. I vote. I've been through several background checks and another more strident check for a CCP and I STILL have to go through another back ground check for each weapon purchase.
You don't even want to show ID to vote....
Pathetic hypocrisy...

 

[Wry Catcher]

So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.

Learn to read. To vote you have to register. That is your background check. There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.

I'm registered to vote. I vote. I've been through several background checks and another more strident check for a CCP and I STILL have to go through another back ground check for each weapon purchase.
You don't even want to show ID to vote....
Pathetic hypocrisy...

Your a liar. I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax. If The Congress or a State Legislatures truly believed voter fraud was a great threat to our democratic institutions they would authorize a form of voter ID and pay for its distribution.

What I oppose is the effort by the Republican Party to suppress the vote of those they cannot get to believe that they are a party of a big tent. Which of course they are not and haven't been since IKE left office.

Evidence? Sure:

• Opposed the Equal Rights Amendment
• Opposed the Lily Ledbetter Law
• Opposed the rights of workers to bargain collectively
• Opposed Affirmative Action
• Opposed SSM
• Opposed women in combat positions
• Opposed gay and lesbian service in the military

 

[Ernie S.]

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?
... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Straw, man. No one makes this argument.

My points are consistent,....

In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There's no ambiguity, as 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

Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.

AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.

SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language

M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.

They will also likely point out that you can't spell ambiguity.

You know guy... You hang out here with your bullshit puffed out chest, "I'm in charge here" attitude, but YOU are the only person here who takes you seriously.
Did you carry a nerf gun when you were on the job too?

REALLY, asshat. If you are going to offer a definition and type it in all caps, you really ought to spell it correctly.

 

[Ernie S.]

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.

Learn to read. To vote you have to register. That is your background check. There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.

I'm registered to vote. I vote. I've been through several background checks and another more strident check for a CCP and I STILL have to go through another back ground check for each weapon purchase.
You don't even want to show ID to vote....
Pathetic hypocrisy...

Your a liar. I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax. If The Congress or a State Legislatures truly believed voter fraud was a great threat to our democratic institutions they would authorize a form of voter ID and pay for its distribution.

What I oppose is the effort by the Republican Party to suppress the vote of those they cannot get to believe that they are a party of a big tent. Which of course they are not and haven't been since IKE left office.

Evidence? Sure:

• Opposed the Equal Rights Amendment
• Opposed the Lily Ledbetter Law
• Opposed the rights of workers to bargain collectively
• Opposed Affirmative Action
• Opposed SSM
• Opposed women in combat positions
• Opposed gay and lesbian service in the military

My what is a liar?