NRA issues threatening video to intimidate opponents

[JimH52]

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

Just in case you can't read very well....

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

 

[kaz]

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.

And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.

I'm just laughing at you now

 

[kaz]

I'm withdrawing your right to answer questions again since you're ignoring every question you're asked, but to repeat. Explain how you get nukes without affecting the rights of other citizens to not do things like die of radiation poisoning.

You threw out having a large enough farm as if that explained where you'd get the radioactive material and how you'd store and utilize it

The government manages to do it, then so can anyone else. Or do you consider yourself dumber than the government?

Your right to ask questions has been withdrawn until this is a conversation where you actually answer questions and respond to points rather than ignoring them all and expecting your questions be answered.

Your concession has been duly noted.

You're a bizarre little thing.

So you ignoring my questions isn't you conceding, oh no, not at all.

When I say I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine, that's me conceding.

But you not answering my questions wasn't.

Damn you're dumb. In your case, vote how your husband tells you to. You're not smart enough to make up your own mind. Someone needs to do it for you

You still on about your baby locked in the crib? What was that all about anyways, or ask me anything else, go ahead.

You argued that children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. That was YOUR argument, hoe, not mine. Man up to your crap.

Taz - Children have full Constitutional rights, so if you don't believe children should be able to take a gun to school, then you don't believe in the right to bear arms

Taz - what do you mean I'm saying children don't have to take a nap. I was being serious, what is this silly argument?

Yeah, that children can take guns to schools, that was your serious argument. You're a dumb bimbo beyond what I could make up

 

[kaz]

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

THEY AIN'T GETTING MY DAMN GUNS! I LOVE MY GUNS! I OCCASIONALLY MAKE LOVE TO MY GUNS....

That leftists equate sex with guns is yet another example of how pathetically sick you idiots are

 

[kaz]

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

You're already letting the government restricts all kinds of weapons, and put an age restriction on the 2nd, thereby infringing on it

Right, you mentioned that. You believe that to put down a 2 year old for a nap and illegally confine him to his crib is unlawful confinement and you're guilty of a crime.

You're a serious whack job. Actually, ding bat, the Constitution says no such thing that children have the rights of adults

 

[kaz]

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

Read and Learn

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

OMG, you caught the SCOTUS not enforcing the Constitution??? I mean that only happens all the time.

They also allow asset forfeiture which violate the fifth amendment, illegal violation of your privacy with no warrants searching for drug money, Federal drug laws which violate the 10th amendment, campaign finance reform (sic) which violates the first, government taking property by force from one citizen and giving it to another when no public use is involved. They are infringing directly on the executive branches Constitutional power over immigration. The list goes on

 

[kaz]

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

Just in case you can't read very well....

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Note is you're keying on that he says it's not an unlimited right, but you don't notice that his explanation is what most of us are saying.

For example, I am not saying that taking guns into government schools is a Constitutional right and no one I've seen has argued that. We've argued that it's bad policy to not allow CC holders to carry them. But that's not a Constitutional right argument.

Now the gun laws you want to put in place as a response to the shooting that would not in any way deter future shootings but would infringe on the right of honest citizens to defend themselves, those are unconstitutional.

This is how vacuously stupid you are. You don't even understand the discussion

 

[boedicca]

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

You're already letting the government restricts all kinds of weapons, and put an age restriction on the 2nd, thereby infringing on it. So you cherry-pick your outrage by falsely claiming a difference between AA missiles and arms. The FFs made no such distinction and it was not their intention to make the citizenry be outgunned by a tyrannical government.

I'm not letting the government do anything; I have had no voice in the matter.

I do recognize the difference between individual arms ("Arms"), and Ordnance such as mounted cannons, missiles, etc. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear regarding ARMS. You can play word games all you like, but the two concepts have distinct meanings.

I also have no issues with minors not being allowed to purchase guns. They haven't reached the age of reason; they don't vote. I will note that nonsensical reasoning, that although 6 year olds can decide their gender, 12 years olds can have an abortion without parental approval, and 18 year olds can serve in the Army, somehow military service members shouldn't be allowed to own a personal weapon until they turn 21 (or drink a beer, for that matter).

 

[kaz]

I do recognize the difference between individual arms ("Arms"), and Ordnance such as mounted cannons, missiles, etc. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear regarding ARMS. You can play word games all you like, but the two concepts have distinct meanings

Actually, arms and ammunition are both ordinances. Granted ordinances is broader than arms, I'm not saying they are synonymous. But they aren't distinct. All arms and weapons are ordinances.

It's like saying mammals are animals. It's a true statement. But not all animals are mammals.

But again, there is no Constitutionally authorized. Federal power to limit citizens from having ordinances either.

As for children, she's just that stupid.

Taz: Children have the right to buy guns or you're infringing on their rights because Children have full Constitutional rights

Taz: What do you mean you can't force a child to take a nap? They don't have full Constitutional rights!

She's an airhead

 

[JimH52]

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

Just in case you can't read very well....

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Note is you're keying on that he says it's not an unlimited right, but you don't notice that his explanation is what most of us are saying.

For example, I am not saying that taking guns into government schools is a Constitutional right and no one I've seen has argued that. We've argued that it's bad policy to not allow CC holders to carry them. But that's not a Constitutional right argument.

Now the gun laws you want to put in place as a response to the shooting that would not in any way deter future shootings but would infringe on the right of honest citizens to defend themselves, those are unconstitutional.

This is how vacuously stupid you are. You don't even understand the discussion

Can you read?


“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools

 

[kaz]

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

Just in case you can't read very well....

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Note is you're keying on that he says it's not an unlimited right, but you don't notice that his explanation is what most of us are saying.

For example, I am not saying that taking guns into government schools is a Constitutional right and no one I've seen has argued that. We've argued that it's bad policy to not allow CC holders to carry them. But that's not a Constitutional right argument.

Now the gun laws you want to put in place as a response to the shooting that would not in any way deter future shootings but would infringe on the right of honest citizens to defend themselves, those are unconstitutional.

This is how vacuously stupid you are. You don't even understand the discussion

Can you read?


“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools

Right. None of those are the point in contention.

felons: We all agree that felons since they have had their constitutional rights restricted from buying guns with DUE PROCESS can be prevented from buying guns legally. No one is disagreeing with you on that. Trump isn't, the NRA isn't, I'm not, Republicans are not libertarians are not. There is no disagreement.

mentally ill. Other than that you don't support the fifth amendment right to due process, there is again no disagreement. You can restrict the rights of mentally ill to buy guns as long as you follow due process to do so. The only difference again is that you don't support due process.

Sensitive places by schools. NO ONE has argued you have a Constitutional right to bring guns into a government school. I already explained this to you in the POST THAT YOU QUOTED where you asked me if I can read. We disagree with your leftist policy to prevent CC holders from doing so, but I haven't seen anyone argue it's a Constitutional right. Constitutional rights do come into your anti-gun policies, but the right to take guns into schools isn't one of those.

You just cited three examples of things that say exactly what I keep telling you. You don't understand the discussion. None of those are the point in contention

 

[Taz]

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.

And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.

I'm just laughing at you now

So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?

 

[Taz]

The government manages to do it, then so can anyone else. Or do you consider yourself dumber than the government?

Your right to ask questions has been withdrawn until this is a conversation where you actually answer questions and respond to points rather than ignoring them all and expecting your questions be answered.

Your concession has been duly noted.

You're a bizarre little thing.

So you ignoring my questions isn't you conceding, oh no, not at all.

When I say I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine, that's me conceding.

But you not answering my questions wasn't.

Damn you're dumb. In your case, vote how your husband tells you to. You're not smart enough to make up your own mind. Someone needs to do it for you

You still on about your baby locked in the crib? What was that all about anyways, or ask me anything else, go ahead.

You argued that children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. That was YOUR argument, hoe, not mine. Man up to your crap.

Taz - Children have full Constitutional rights, so if you don't believe children should be able to take a gun to school, then you don't believe in the right to bear arms

Taz - what do you mean I'm saying children don't have to take a nap. I was being serious, what is this silly argument?

Yeah, that children can take guns to schools, that was your serious argument. You're a dumb bimbo beyond what I could make up

The 2nd makes no age restriction on purpose. Or are you saying that the FFs didn't know what they were doing?

 

[Taz]

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

You're already letting the government restricts all kinds of weapons, and put an age restriction on the 2nd, thereby infringing on it

Right, you mentioned that. You believe that to put down a 2 year old for a nap and illegally confine him to his crib is unlawful confinement and you're guilty of a crime.

You're a serious whack job. Actually, ding bat, the Constitution says no such thing that children have the rights of adults

Where did I say that? You made that up for lack of a real argument.

 

[JimH52]

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

Just in case you can't read very well....

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Note is you're keying on that he says it's not an unlimited right, but you don't notice that his explanation is what most of us are saying.

For example, I am not saying that taking guns into government schools is a Constitutional right and no one I've seen has argued that. We've argued that it's bad policy to not allow CC holders to carry them. But that's not a Constitutional right argument.

Now the gun laws you want to put in place as a response to the shooting that would not in any way deter future shootings but would infringe on the right of honest citizens to defend themselves, those are unconstitutional.

This is how vacuously stupid you are. You don't even understand the discussion

Can you read?


“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools

Right. None of those are the point in contention.

felons: We all agree that felons since they have had their constitutional rights restricted from buying guns with DUE PROCESS can be prevented from buying guns legally. No one is disagreeing with you on that. Trump isn't, the NRA isn't, I'm not, Republicans are not libertarians are not. There is no disagreement.

mentally ill. Other than that you don't support the fifth amendment right to due process, there is again no disagreement. You can restrict the rights of mentally ill to buy guns as long as you follow due process to do so. The only difference again is that you don't support due process.

Sensitive places by schools. NO ONE has argued you have a Constitutional right to bring guns into a government school. I already explained this to you in the POST THAT YOU QUOTED where you asked me if I can read. We disagree with your leftist policy to prevent CC holders from doing so, but I haven't seen anyone argue it's a Constitutional right. Constitutional rights do come into your anti-gun policies, but the right to take guns into schools isn't one of those.

You just cited three examples of things that say exactly what I keep telling you. You don't understand the discussion. None of those are the point in contention

Actually the very conservative judge is making the point that firearms are and should be restricted from schools....in conflict with your dear leaders assertions allowing teachers to carry.

Mental illness can now be gauged by such indicators as social media. The present background checks do not take that into account.

My point is....the CDC should be given the opportunity to study and make reasonable recommendations on reasonable gun laws. The NRA is continually blocking that effort.

 

[kaz]

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.

And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.

I'm just laughing at you now

So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?

You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.

You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?

My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?

 

[kaz]

Your right to ask questions has been withdrawn until this is a conversation where you actually answer questions and respond to points rather than ignoring them all and expecting your questions be answered.

Your concession has been duly noted.

You're a bizarre little thing.

So you ignoring my questions isn't you conceding, oh no, not at all.

When I say I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine, that's me conceding.

But you not answering my questions wasn't.

Damn you're dumb. In your case, vote how your husband tells you to. You're not smart enough to make up your own mind. Someone needs to do it for you

You still on about your baby locked in the crib? What was that all about anyways, or ask me anything else, go ahead.

You argued that children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. That was YOUR argument, hoe, not mine. Man up to your crap.

Taz - Children have full Constitutional rights, so if you don't believe children should be able to take a gun to school, then you don't believe in the right to bear arms

Taz - what do you mean I'm saying children don't have to take a nap. I was being serious, what is this silly argument?

Yeah, that children can take guns to schools, that was your serious argument. You're a dumb bimbo beyond what I could make up

The 2nd makes no age restriction on purpose. Or are you saying that the FFs didn't know what they were doing?

Children can buy guns, but you can't force them to take a nap. You mentioned that. You're an awful debater. I'm glad you're on the left's side

 

[kaz]

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

You're already letting the government restricts all kinds of weapons, and put an age restriction on the 2nd, thereby infringing on it

Right, you mentioned that. You believe that to put down a 2 year old for a nap and illegally confine him to his crib is unlawful confinement and you're guilty of a crime.

You're a serious whack job. Actually, ding bat, the Constitution says no such thing that children have the rights of adults

Where did I say that? You made that up for lack of a real argument.

Is it Constitutional for you to detain an adult against their will in your house?

 

[boedicca]

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

Read and Learn

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

OMG, you caught the SCOTUS not enforcing the Constitution??? I mean that only happens all the time.

They also allow asset forfeiture which violate the fifth amendment, illegal violation of your privacy with no warrants searching for drug money, Federal drug laws which violate the 10th amendment, campaign finance reform (sic) which violates the first, government taking property by force from one citizen and giving it to another when no public use is involved. They are infringing directly on the executive branches Constitutional power over immigration. The list goes on

The list goes on and on because the Progs realized they could subvert the legislative process by having Prog Judges write laws for them via court rulings.

 

[Cosmos]

Yeah, snowflakes. Pretty scary all right. As usual, Dana hits the nail right on the head.