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

[MonaGonna]

The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.

Freedom of religion I agree, I don't know what freedom "from" religion means.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What that Constitutional right confuses you?

Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....

...

But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: well-regulated.

Interesting you use the correct word, "why." Why is an explanation, not a restriction.

Where
A = A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
B = The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says because A, B. I doesn't say B if A. A stands alone.

And the reason for that is that militias are of the citizenry. It is up to the people what a militia is, it is not up to government. Keep in mind what the Constitution is, it's a restriction on Federal government power.

That militias refer to government, like the national guard, would be preposterous. I didn't see you specifically say that. But that they would in a limitation of Federal powers say that government can declare itself to be a militia would be absurd.

Similarly if government can even define militias then it's a non right. It would be saying government can decide if you have the right to have a gun or not, that would be a non-right.

Also I hope you realize the word "regulated" doesn't necessarily mean government regulation. It only makes sense that it's citizen regulated. Anything else would say they went so far as to include this in 10 specific limitations on government power, then gave the government the power to just decide what the right is and who gets it.

The writings of the founding fathers across the board added a reason for guns that you omitted, protection from our own government. They were in fact more concerned with that than any other protection. Again meaning that to believe that government, which they feared, could tell the people what guns they can have and who can have them. It's completely illogical.

It's illogical to think that the reason the FFs put in the 2nd is still valid today. You're all living in the past.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you continue to advocate limiting the rights of law abiding gun owners (who are the only ones who abide by the law) leading one to believe that your agenda is actually different than the one that you publically claim. Therefore, your argument ultimately fails.

Provide a link to where I've advocated something that limits the rights of law abiding gun owners.

You didn't read my post. You are just spamming for your agenda.

I said that the litmus test for a particular law should not be that it prevents all criminals from breaking the law (which is an impossible standard to satisfy), but rather that the standard should be this: an additional law is worth implementing if it limits the offending behavior without trampling constitutionally protected rights.

How is this a rational basis? How does this meet strict scrutiny?
To what other rights does this rational basis then apply?
How do you define "undue restriction"? How is that definition sound? How does "undue restriction" compare and contrast to "infringement"?
What "stricter gun law(s)" will prevent one death?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What that Constitutional right confuses you?

Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....

The only people confused in this regard are those who want to further limit the rights of the law abiding and refuse to believe that the constitution gets in their way.

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 - and so, any argument based on "...a well regulated militia...: is a non-starter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's illogical to think that the reason the FFs put in the 2nd is still valid today. You're all living in the past.

On the contrary - only the ignorant believe that it applies any less today than it did back then.

 

[Pogo]

Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do ....

And you were trying to pretend you didn't get my point.

Freudian slip.

Thanks for playin'.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

What is your view on gun laws since your transactional points all contradict each other?

Liberalism is a transactional ideology where your positions and arguments all endlessly contradict each other.

You're afraid now to just plainly state your clear and complete view because even you know I'm going to take you apart with your quotes.

Oh poster please. All you "take apart" is your own credibility trying to put words in others' mouths.

I offered no "contradictions". You're STILL free to quote where I did, as you were yesterday when you failed to find any.

Where are they then?

 

[kaz]

The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.

Freedom of religion I agree, I don't know what freedom "from" religion means.

Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....

...

But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: well-regulated.

Interesting you use the correct word, "why." Why is an explanation, not a restriction.

Where
A = A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
B = The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says because A, B. I doesn't say B if A. A stands alone.

And the reason for that is that militias are of the citizenry. It is up to the people what a militia is, it is not up to government. Keep in mind what the Constitution is, it's a restriction on Federal government power.

That militias refer to government, like the national guard, would be preposterous. I didn't see you specifically say that. But that they would in a limitation of Federal powers say that government can declare itself to be a militia would be absurd.

Similarly if government can even define militias then it's a non right. It would be saying government can decide if you have the right to have a gun or not, that would be a non-right.

Also I hope you realize the word "regulated" doesn't necessarily mean government regulation. It only makes sense that it's citizen regulated. Anything else would say they went so far as to include this in 10 specific limitations on government power, then gave the government the power to just decide what the right is and who gets it.

The writings of the founding fathers across the board added a reason for guns that you omitted, protection from our own government. They were in fact more concerned with that than any other protection. Again meaning that to believe that government, which they feared, could tell the people what guns they can have and who can have them. It's completely illogical.

It's illogical to think that the reason the FFs put in the 2nd is still valid today. You're all living in the past.

The ff's thought of that. The constitution can be changed by 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Until that happens the 2nd is as valid as they day they wrote it.

 

[kaz]

And you were trying to pretend you didn't get my point.

Freudian slip.

Thanks for playin'.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

What is your view on gun laws since your transactional points all contradict each other?

Liberalism is a transactional ideology where your positions and arguments all endlessly contradict each other.

You're afraid now to just plainly state your clear and complete view because even you know I'm going to take you apart with your quotes.

Oh poster please. All you "take apart" is your own credibility trying to put words in others' mouths.

I offered no "contradictions". You're STILL free to quote where I did, as you were yesterday when you failed to find any.

Where are they then?

I already showed you. In the meantime, your refusal to just state your view or directly answer the op in a thread you're actively participating in speaks for itself, it's just a chicken dance.

 

[Geaux4it]

I wonder why this is still a topic? It has to be more than why is this still a topic. lol

It is however a good central location to identify all the anti-american gun grabbing loons

The left are getting killed here, no pun intended.

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

I wonder why this is still a topic? It has to be more than why is this still a topic. lol

It is however a good central location to identify all the anti-american gun grabbing loons

The left are getting killed here, no pun intended.

-Geaux

122 pages and not one liberal has answered the simple question in the op. if any kid can get as much drugs, which are outright illegal, as they want, why would any criminal not be able to get as many guns as they want?

The US and the rest of the world are full of both. Organized crime loved prohibition, they love the war on drugs and they would love more gun restrictions for the same reason, it then becomes a market for them.

 

[Pogo]

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

What is your view on gun laws since your transactional points all contradict each other?

Liberalism is a transactional ideology where your positions and arguments all endlessly contradict each other.

You're afraid now to just plainly state your clear and complete view because even you know I'm going to take you apart with your quotes.

Oh poster please. All you "take apart" is your own credibility trying to put words in others' mouths.

I offered no "contradictions". You're STILL free to quote where I did, as you were yesterday when you failed to find any.

Where are they then?

I already showed you. In the meantime, your refusal to just state your view or directly answer the op in a thread you're actively participating in speaks for itself, it's just a chicken dance.

Still emptyhanded. OK then. You could just cut to the chase and admit to lying. But nooooo...

If I had intended to address the OP directly, I would have chimed in at the beginning. My position is that the question is irrelevant, because its premise ignores the underlying issue. And that would be the same issue you articulated and I bolded. The same issue that brought me to join this forum a year ago after Jovan Belcher.

When the premise is irrelevant, there's no point in addressing it directly. And that's why I didn't.

Duh.

 

[kaz]

Oh poster please. All you "take apart" is your own credibility trying to put words in others' mouths.

I offered no "contradictions". You're STILL free to quote where I did, as you were yesterday when you failed to find any.

Where are they then?

I already showed you. In the meantime, your refusal to just state your view or directly answer the op in a thread you're actively participating in speaks for itself, it's just a chicken dance.

Still emptyhanded. OK then. You could just cut to the chase and admit to lying. But nooooo...

If I had intended to address the OP directly, I would have chimed in at the beginning. My position is that the question is irrelevant, because its premise ignores the underlying issue. And that would be the same issue you articulated and I bolded. The same issue that brought me to join this forum a year ago after Jovan Belcher.

When the premise is irrelevant, there's no point in addressing it directly. And that's why I didn't.

Duh.

So you went with a bunch of contradictory transactional arguments without committing to any actual position. Stereotypical liberal.

You said the answer to guns is not more guns and shooting back at criminals is "escalation." You also said that government cannot get rid of guns by banning them. So obviously you realize that criminals will get them. But you're not saying that it's better for only criminals to have guns, even though that is the sum of your transactional arguments.

 

[Pogo]

I already showed you. In the meantime, your refusal to just state your view or directly answer the op in a thread you're actively participating in speaks for itself, it's just a chicken dance.

Still emptyhanded. OK then. You could just cut to the chase and admit to lying. But nooooo...

If I had intended to address the OP directly, I would have chimed in at the beginning. My position is that the question is irrelevant, because its premise ignores the underlying issue. And that would be the same issue you articulated and I bolded. The same issue that brought me to join this forum a year ago after Jovan Belcher.

When the premise is irrelevant, there's no point in addressing it directly. And that's why I didn't.

Duh.

So you went with a bunch of contradictory transactional arguments without committing to any actual position. Stereotypical liberal.

You said the answer to guns is not more guns and shooting back at criminals is "escalation." You also said that government cannot get rid of guns by banning them. So obviously you realize that criminals will get them. But you're not saying that it's better for only criminals to have guns, even though that is the sum of your transactional arguments.

That's your idiotically specious conclusion after putting my posts through some kind of mental blender. There is no "contradiction". That's uh, why you failed to find one.

This is entirely over your head. You're wasting my time.

 

[kaz]

Still emptyhanded. OK then. You could just cut to the chase and admit to lying. But nooooo...

If I had intended to address the OP directly, I would have chimed in at the beginning. My position is that the question is irrelevant, because its premise ignores the underlying issue. And that would be the same issue you articulated and I bolded. The same issue that brought me to join this forum a year ago after Jovan Belcher.

When the premise is irrelevant, there's no point in addressing it directly. And that's why I didn't.

Duh.

So you went with a bunch of contradictory transactional arguments without committing to any actual position. Stereotypical liberal.

You said the answer to guns is not more guns and shooting back at criminals is "escalation." You also said that government cannot get rid of guns by banning them. So obviously you realize that criminals will get them. But you're not saying that it's better for only criminals to have guns, even though that is the sum of your transactional arguments.

No, that's your idiotically specious conclusion after putting my posts through some kind of mental blender. There is no "contradiction". That's uh, why you failed to find one.

This is entirely over your head. You're wasting my time.

Your aversion to just clearly and completely stating your view is what's wasting your time.

Here's the bottom line though, Pogo. I told you what posts appear completely contradictory. They do. If you had intellectual integrity and I missed your point, just reading those posts you would have said, aha, I see what's confusing you. Let me clarify. Instead you went with you don't get it. What all of you liberals have in common is that none of you can directly address the point, gun laws keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens, they do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals. There is nothing different to your dance around that point to any of the other liberals doing it.

If you had an answer, you'd be glad to share it.

 

[boedicca]

The Reactionary Liberal Plan for Keeping Guns from Criminals:

1. Make all guns illegal, thus turning all gun owners into criminals.
2. Declare a National Emergency with strict curfews and suspension of rights protected by the Constitution due to the country being overrun by criminals.
3. Cut off the internet, and provide only one way communication via government controlled media in order to Control The Narrative.
4. Unleash the vast army of SEIU-ACORN and other Thugs to make examples of "criminals" in an attempt to intimidate the ones who are still holding onto their guns.
5. Conduct a few drone strikes to eliminate concentrations of "criminals", and use the collateral damage of dead children to whip up public anger against the "criminals".
6. Continue this until the public spirit is completely broken down and neighbors turn in neighbors in a futile attempt to shield themselves from the totalitarian enforcement actions.
7. Declare Obama Dear Leader for Life.

 

[Pogo]

So you went with a bunch of contradictory transactional arguments without committing to any actual position. Stereotypical liberal.

You said the answer to guns is not more guns and shooting back at criminals is "escalation." You also said that government cannot get rid of guns by banning them. So obviously you realize that criminals will get them. But you're not saying that it's better for only criminals to have guns, even though that is the sum of your transactional arguments.

No, that's your idiotically specious conclusion after putting my posts through some kind of mental blender. There is no "contradiction". That's uh, why you failed to find one.

This is entirely over your head. You're wasting my time.

Your aversion to just clearly and completely stating your view is what's wasting your time.

Here's the bottom line though, Pogo. I told you what posts appear completely contradictory. They do. If you had intellectual integrity and I missed your point, just reading those posts you would have said, aha, I see what's confusing you. Let me clarify. Instead you went with you don't get it. What all of you liberals have in common is that none of you can directly address the point, gun laws keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens, they do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals. There is nothing different to your dance around that point to any of the other liberals doing it.

If you had an answer, you'd be glad to share it.

For the umpteenth time ------- I have no answer when there is no question.

You've been yapping and yapping about a 'contradiction', yet every time I invite you to show it, you come up empty. Now what the fuck does that tell you?

It's not my job to make your point for you. What part of that escapes you?

Again, your leaning on crutches of lumping anyone you fail to understand into little blanket-statement prefab boxes is evidence enough of your dearth of rational thought. That dearth is why you're not worth my time.

Come back when you learn how to think.

 

[boedicca]

Come back when you learn how to think.

You first, poopsie.

 

[Pogo]

Come back when you learn how to think.

You first, poopsie.

Wasn't talking to you, Bodelicious

 

[Geaux4it]

LMAO- I have not witnessed such hot air from the libs like this in some time. Like their opinion means anything when it comes to infringing on law abiding citizens rights.

When will they learn the tantrums relative to gun control are futile

-Geaux

 

[boedicca]

Come back when you learn how to think.

You first, poopsie.

Wasn't talking to you, Bodelicious

It wasn't exactly a PM, dipsy-doodlely-poo.

 

[Pogo]

You first, poopsie.

Wasn't talking to you, Bodelicious

It wasn't exactly a PM, dipsy-doodlely-poo.

Sure wasn't Bo-dee-oh-do-ski. But it is out of context. Kaz is the one determined to invent conflicts that don't exist; I have no quarrel with you, Wicca-dicca.

Besides...

Time to eat