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

[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.

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.

typical grammar nazi, ^^^ a typical asshole authoritarian punk who can't read in context. My first spelling of the word was correct, I screwed up on the second and if that's all you got - ad hominems - why not STFU or post something substantive, if you can (which is unlikely).

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

I explained your lie which even an average 3rd grade student would understand. Have someone help you:

"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 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."

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

What's that?
You disagree with the state forcing a citizen to pay a fee in order to exercise his rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

typical grammar nazi, ^^^ a typical asshole authoritarian punk who can't read in context. My first spelling of the word was correct, I screwed up on the second and if that's all you got - ad hominems - why not STFU or post something substantive, if you can (which is unlikely).

Fuck you, you pompous ass. I post substantive material all the time to people worth discussing issues with. Pompous, self absorbed know-nothings, get little but the ridicule they deserve.

 

[Ernie S.]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, a simple bill should be drawn up and debated... then inevitably passed and signed into law by the President, which simply forbids anyone with any discernible kinship with the Ideological Left to possess a firearm; wherein, it is deemed legal to summarily execute anyone of such a nature who is found to be in possession of such, or who is reasonably known to have recently BEEN in possession of such. This would include... all teachers, professors, all homosexuals, the gender confused, government employees except the Military... which would of course need to exclude all sexual deviants and Democrats in general... all members of the media, all citizens of any Liberal, Progressive, Socialist Enterprise of kind ... City, State, what have you. I.e.: The Democrat Party, MA, MI, VT... Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, NYC, California, Oregon, Washington, Washington DC... New Mexico, Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc... .

Sure... it will be a blood bath for a few years. But... once the Leftists or products of left-think are eradicated... the rest will simply work itself out.

It's not like its not going to come to a blood bath inevitably, anyway.

 

[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.

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

Challenge ... ACCEPTED

OK, Holmes. Answer either of these questions.

1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee

2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...

now run away like the scared little bitch that you are

 

[kaz]

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.

You mean my ignorance based on that obviously the Constitution and the Supreme Court allow government to decide if we get our Consittutional rights, make us apply, get a license and pay a fee.

OK, you useless, integrity challenged limp dicked human being. I am calling you out.

NAME ONE

Name another right you subject the same standards to

 

[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.

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.

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.

To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left. Then it becomes absolute

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

What's that?
You disagree with the state forcing a citizen to pay a fee in order to exercise his rights?

24th Amendment. Gee, and I thought you believed you are an expert on COTUS. I guess I was correct, you're as dumb as you many posts suggest.

 

[Rustic]

A nonissue...

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

What's that?
You disagree with the state forcing a citizen to pay a fee in order to exercise his rights?

24th Amendment.

Oh, I see...
So, as long at there's no specific language in the constitution that prohibits it, the exercise of a right CAN be subjected to fees taxes and excises by the state?
Correct?

 

[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.

 

[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...

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

Challenge ... ACCEPTED

OK, Holmes. Answer either of these questions.

1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee

2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...

now run away like the scared little bitch that you are

"scared little bitch"; spoken with the authority of trailer trash.

1. Word Salad, fix the syntax and maybe it might, possibly seem kinda like someone whose first language was English, and they completed the first grade.

2. I doubt anyone alive today heard anything the founder's said.

 

[Arizona Willie]

The ONLY way we can < effectively > deal with the gun problem is to have a new law that says " anyone who uses / carries a weapon in the course of committing a crime, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, gets a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE" and release the thousands of people in prison for simple possession of marijuana.

Let the pot users go and imprison the crazies who use weapons to commit crimes. Soon the bad guys would all be locked up for life instead of having stoners ( who never hurt anyone ) in prison.

MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR USING A WEAPON AND COMMITTING A CRIME.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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.

To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left. Then it becomes absolute

Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed? Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade. As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?

 

[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.

Your opinions aren't persuasive.

They are, and orders of magnitude more so than your arguments, wholly from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement),

^^^
A lie.