Nevada Governor vetoes offensive Gun control bill.

[TemplarKormac]

I said guns are tools just like a car.

Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. I'm not impressed at all.

You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.

waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary



keep swinging....

Oh so you just used Heller on me huh? Read the summary again, tool.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And then we take a look at McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), which essentially reaffirmed Heller, and built upon it. It essentially held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.

Read Justice Alito's majority opinion on the subject here beginning on page 16.

A person's gun is his personal property, as covered in the 4th Amendment, and he has a right to be safe from reprisal by his government for owning it. The 5th Amendment says he has a right to life liberty and property, thus he has a right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment says his rights to use that weapon for self defense or for whatever reason that does not break the law, shall not be restricted. Therefore any restrictions placed on that right would be unconstitutional.

Knocked this one out of the park, buddy. Going, going, gone.

Sigh you are still arguing like im taking your guns away when ive stated I have zero Intention to.
Until you actually understand this point we can not go further. Ive noticed this is a problem with a lot of you. You are already coming in with this preset idea and you will spout the same rhetoric over and over.

Its boring.

Nah, I just kicked your sorry liberal ass. I notice your lack of a counterargument, by the way. If you don't want to argue me, you must not be able to. Just run along now. Your concession is accepted.

 

[westwall]

I said guns are tools just like a car.

Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. Im not impressed at all.

You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.

waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary



keep swinging....

I'm so happy you have no problem surrendering your rights. However, when you start trying to abrogate mine, I take issue with that. To date there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books and not one has ever been shown to have prevented a crime.

You are totally wrong on your read of US V Miller, they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no forseeable military purpose". Their ruling had nothing to do with the civilian useage of weapons at the time.

Further, once the law was passed the ATF's precurser took it upon themselves (like all bureaucracies do) to add weapons to the controlled list via non-legislative "rules". They have passed thousands of rules that most people have no knowledge of.

And that leads to the final issue which is namely once something is regulated, the regulations can be made ever more onerous. But you anti civil rights propagandists know that, you simply don't care. You want power over the population and you willuse whatever nefarious methods you have to to obtain your goal.

Lol im not going to change your mind on the issue like most other people. You are going to weasel your way out of everything in order to say the government is going after your rights.

Normal thinking people understand they are not. Sure some people want laws passed to ban guns, but that wont be happening. Scotus already stated you cant pass those type of laws.

Passi g a law that states you must have your gun locked and in a rack is not infringing on your rights. You already own the gun.

Good for those 20k laws on the books. Id still pass further background checks, higher more agents to check inventories of gun stores and maybe have gun locks on guns when being stored.

Rational people would be fine with this. I understand you are not a rational person on this issue.

Yes my methods are voting to have laws passed. Im fucking evil....

Actually, now that the people have seen with their own eyes the massive over reach of powers that the Feds regularly engage in they're on my side...not yours. So sad for you little Stalinist.

Rational people like the rights and responsibilities that were given to them at birth in this country. Stalinists like you don't want the people to be free.

That much is patently obvious.

 

[westwall]

I said guns are tools just like a car.

Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. I'm not impressed at all.

You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.

waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary



keep swinging....

Oh so you just used Heller on me huh? Read the summary again, tool.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And then we take a look at McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), which essentially reaffirmed Heller, and built upon it. It essentially held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.

Read Justice Alito's majority opinion on the subject here beginning on page 16.

A person's gun is his personal property, as covered in the 4th Amendment, and he has a right to be safe from reprisal by his government for owning it. The 5th Amendment says he has a right to life liberty and property, thus he has a right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment says his rights to use that weapon for self defense or for whatever reason that does not break the law, shall not be restricted. Therefore any restrictions placed on that right would be unconstitutional.

Knocked this one out of the park, buddy. Going, going, gone.

Sigh you are still arguing like im taking your guns away when ive stated I have zero Intention to.
Until you actually understand this point we can not go further. Ive noticed this is a problem with a lot of you. You are already coming in with this preset idea and you will spout the same rhetoric over and over.

Its boring.

But it's accurate comrade. It's called incrementalism and we understand its uses quite well....as do you...

 

[RDD_1210]

Books are a lot more dangerous to governments than guns.

Tell me the one again how cough drops are just as dangerous as guns.

Wouldn't I have to say that before I could say it again?

Lol please deny that I made up my signature.

You're as bad as Rabbi.

 

[RDD_1210]

The right of private individuals not to have to get the prior approval of the government to transfer ownership of property.

Specifically.

Where exactly is that right outlined..... specifically.

Why does it have to be outlined? What if it is only highlighted, would that work for you?

And the back pedaling begins.

 

[J.E.D]

The problem is that background checks do not stop any crimes or any injuries, all they do is invade the privacy of gun buyers.

Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.

Why is it a bad thing to keep felons from buying guns legally?

so if they know they cant buy them in a shop.....they go and get them the way they do now......how are they being deterred?.....

Maybe they DON'T go and get one elsewhere. Maybe they get turned down at the gun shop and have second thoughts. Maybe a person with a history of mental illness goes off his meds and with thoughts of suicide or doing harm to others, goes to a gun shop and gets turned down. Maybe that deters him.

Is that really so implausable?

I always hear from gun rights advocates that they're responsible gun owners who practice safety. Well, there are people out there who are not responsible with guns. There are people out there who have bad intent; who are mentally unstable; who have a history of selling weapons to criminals. I would think that "responsible" gun owners would want to make it more difficult for those types of people to get a gun. It turns out that people like you just want to own/sell/trade any weapon you choose under the guise of "protecting your 2nd amendment right" without regard to public safety. In my world, that makes you an irresponsible gun owner.

 

[asaratis]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like fucking assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

The Constitution is not subject to compromise.

 

[asaratis]

Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.

Why is it a bad thing to keep felons from buying guns legally?

so if they know they cant buy them in a shop.....they go and get them the way they do now......how are they being deterred?.....

Maybe they DON'T go and get one elsewhere. Maybe they get turned down at the gun shop and have second thoughts. Maybe a person with a history of mental illness goes off his meds and with thoughts of suicide or doing harm to others, goes to a gun shop and gets turned down. Maybe that deters him.

Is that really so implausable?

I always hear from gun rights advocates that they're responsible gun owners who practice safety. Well, there are people out there who are not responsible with guns. There are people out there who have bad intent; who are mentally unstable; who have a history of selling weapons to criminals. I would think that "responsible" gun owners would want to make it more difficult for those types of people to get a gun. It turns out that people like you just want to own/sell/trade any weapon you choose under the guise of "protecting your 2nd amendment right" without regard to public safety. In my world, that makes you an irresponsible gun owner.

So, do you think these people will a) become aware that the law has changed or b) obey it once they become aware?

I say that the above a) is possible but not guaranteed and that the b) is simply not going to happen.

 

[Geaux4it]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like fucking assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

The Constitution is not subject to compromise.

/\
this

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like fucking assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

we have compromised enough

 

[jon_berzerk]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like fucking assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

The Constitution is not subject to compromise.

actually it is

but there is a process for that

though the use of amendments

 

[J.E.D]

so if they know they cant buy them in a shop.....they go and get them the way they do now......how are they being deterred?.....

Maybe they DON'T go and get one elsewhere. Maybe they get turned down at the gun shop and have second thoughts. Maybe a person with a history of mental illness goes off his meds and with thoughts of suicide or doing harm to others, goes to a gun shop and gets turned down. Maybe that deters him.

Is that really so implausable?

I always hear from gun rights advocates that they're responsible gun owners who practice safety. Well, there are people out there who are not responsible with guns. There are people out there who have bad intent; who are mentally unstable; who have a history of selling weapons to criminals. I would think that "responsible" gun owners would want to make it more difficult for those types of people to get a gun. It turns out that people like you just want to own/sell/trade any weapon you choose under the guise of "protecting your 2nd amendment right" without regard to public safety. In my world, that makes you an irresponsible gun owner.

So, do you think these people will a) become aware that the law has changed or b) obey it once they become aware?

I say that the above a) is possible but not guaranteed and that the b) is simply not going to happen.

So, make it easier for them to accomplish their goals? *sigh*

 

[zeke]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like fucking assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

The Constitution is not subject to compromise.

Oh fuking please. Womens right to vote? Prohibition? Those weren't compromises' eh?

 

[PredFan]

JED i think a lot of people are afraid it does not stop after the check.....that your name will go onto the big....."HE HAS A GUN" govt list......and on that....i understand their distrust......

The problem is that background checks do not stop any crimes or any injuries, all they do is invade the privacy of gun buyers.

Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.

Why is it a bad thing to keep felons from buying guns legally?

Because criminals obey laws.

 

[Wildman]

I can't believe the people who are willing to surrender not only their rights, but my rights, my Children's rights, and my Chldren's Children's rights simply because they want "society to advance".

those "people" are nothing but commie shills and useful idiots for the anti-gun establishment, the only way the commies can take over America is to disarm the the patriotic Americans first........., and THAT ain't gonna happen in my life time !!

 

[PredFan]

Yeah curbing violence is a pathetic talking point. Im just going to ignore it from now on.
It doesn't infringe on your right unless you are mentally insane or a criminal. Are you either of these?

Im Not worried when I have to take a drug test for a job. See thats the problem. If this was a private company you wouldnt say shit. Its because its the government that you have a problem. Everything else about your argument is bullshit. Its about hating the government and that's it.

You are a waste of time. You are in this to win points and nothing more.

You keep insisting, against all logic, that it doesn't infringe on my rights as if simply because you say it it is true.

I am in this to counter left wing lunacy, and since you have no logical argument and in fact choose to ignore the argument, i win again.

Prove background checks infringe on your right to own a gun. Go ahead this should be funny.

Oh pred you havent changed, full of shit.

Are you talking the background checks we already have in place or the ones you looneys are proposing?

If you mean the ones you wing nuts want to add, well then that's easy.

Frist of all I said "rights", and not simply "Right to own a gun". If I have to have my neighbor perform a background check on me it infringes on two rights, 1, the right to buy a gun, and 2, my right to privacy. The problem with you is you don't inderstand the definition of "Infringe".

You haven't changed. You're still a partisan hack who will say any stupid thing as long as it is the opposite of what a conservative says.

 

[PredFan]

Yeah curbing violence is a pathetic talking point. Im just going to ignore it from now on.
It doesn't infringe on your right unless you are mentally insane or a criminal. Are you either of these?

Im Not worried when I have to take a drug test for a job. See thats the problem. If this was a private company you wouldnt say shit. Its because its the government that you have a problem. Everything else about your argument is bullshit. Its about hating the government and that's it.

You are a waste of time. You are in this to win points and nothing more.

You keep insisting, against all logic, that it doesn't infringe on my rights as if simply because you say it it is true.

I am in this to counter left wing lunacy, and since you have no logical argument and in fact choose to ignore the argument, i win again.

Do you even understand the meaning of the word "infringe"?

Yes, but apparently you do not.

 

[PredFan]

Offensive to whom? Gun manufacturers?

No, gun owners and buyers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like fucking assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

The Constitution is not subject to compromise.

Oh fuking please. Womens right to vote? Prohibition? Those weren't compromises' eh?

One of those were advances that gave rights to people. Prohibition was repealed. The things you people propose take them away from one group and reallocate them to another.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah curbing violence is a pathetic talking point. Im just going to ignore it from now on.
It doesn't infringe on your right unless you are mentally insane or a criminal. Are you either of these?

Im Not worried when I have to take a drug test for a job. See thats the problem. If this was a private company you wouldnt say shit. Its because its the government that you have a problem. Everything else about your argument is bullshit. Its about hating the government and that's it.

You are a waste of time. You are in this to win points and nothing more.

You keep insisting, against all logic, that it doesn't infringe on my rights as if simply because you say it it is true.

I am in this to counter left wing lunacy, and since you have no logical argument and in fact choose to ignore the argument, i win again.

Do you even understand the meaning of the word "infringe"?

To deny, advance upon, or otherwise deprive a person of the right to exercise a lawfully granted right or privilege. (Quoted from memory)