Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

[candycorn]

Who is Noe?

Sorry...
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing.

It refers to restrictions laid upon by the government that "infringe" on the right to arms.
How does your proposed restriction by the government not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

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.
So, I ask again:
- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

I'll be happy to answer your questions, but first you must give legitimate answers to mine.

 

[candycorn]

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing.

It refers to restrictions laid upon by the government that "infringe" on the right to arms.
How does your proposed restriction by the government not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

Again it doesn't. Nothing in the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. If that were the case The fact that you have to pay for weapons would, therefore, be an infringement on your rights.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

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.
So, I ask again:
- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. Various interpretations may say that but the Constitution does not. I can prove it: Point to the words "unconnected" and "self-defense" and "home" in the text of the amendment below:

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

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

We don't want activist judges telling us what words mean; do we?

I'll be happy to answer your questions, but first you must give legitimate answers to mine.

No you won't. You can't answer them. Because constitutionally you're on thin ice. We all know this.

 

[candycorn]

I'll take "Shit M14 Is Too Scared To Answer" For 1,000 Alex!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again it doesn't. Nothing in the 2nd amendment refers to pricing.

It refer to actions by the state that infringe on the exercise of the right arms - the prohibition is plenary and does specifically include or exclude any specific action.
Your taxation/licensing/reinsurance requirements are all all actions by the state intended to limit the exercise of the right.
How do those actions not infringe on the right?

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. Various interpretations may say that but the Constitution does not.

Ah, So you refuse to accept the law on this matter.
Since it is impossible to honestly argue with someone who chooses to be wrong, I accept your concession of the point.

No you won't. You can't answer them. Because constitutionally you're on thin ice. We all know this.

I openly laugh at you.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".

The amendment protects the right of the people, not the right of the people in the militia.

How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?

The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.

 

[candycorn]

Again it doesn't. Nothing in the 2nd amendment refers to pricing.
It refer to actions by the state that infringe on the exercise of the right arms - the prohibition is plenary and does not exclude any specific action.
Your taxation/licensing/reinsurance requirements are all all actions by the state intended to limit the exercise of the right.
How do those actions not infringe on the right?

Again, the text of the 2nd Amendment does not mention price at all. Never has. If you can show me where price was mentioned in the constitution, I'll agree what I'm suggesting is unconstitutional. If you can't, you're referring to a judge's interpretation of the Amendment.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
The amendment protects the right of the people, not the right of the people in the militia.

Your interpretation is noted; as a dude on a message board, it means little.

If the Militia (it is capitalized in the document) wasn't paramount, it wouldn't be in the document to start with. Like if the framers wanted to ensure free speech was only intended to the newspapers, they would have put the newspapers or publishers in the document. They didn't. They went out of their way to put the Militia (again capitalized) into the document. It is a telling fact that you'll ignore of course.

So again, how can you argue that the Militia wasn't paramount when the institution was included in this amendment, but at the same time, the same authors, did not include institutions in the other amendments?

How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?
The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.

Except I just did. Admittedly it will take time. Admittedly, it will not stop massacres in the short term. Admittedly, it may not stop them in the long term. But it will reduce them. Less guns=less gun crime. As was proven all over Europe and Australia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again it doesn't. Nothing in the 2nd amendment refers to pricing.
It refer to actions by the state that infringe on the exercise of the right arms - the prohibition is plenary and does not exclude any specific action.
Your taxation/licensing/reinsurance requirements are all all actions by the state intended to limit the exercise of the right.
How do those actions not infringe on the right?

Again, the text of the 2nd Amendment does not mention price at all.

It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
The amendment protects the right of the people, not the right of the people in the militia.

Your interpretation is noted; as a dude on a message board, it means little.

My interpretation? I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, maningful in any way?

The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.

Except I just did

You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.

 

[Slyhunter]

Noe sure you you're disagreeing with me here.

Who is Noe?

Sorry...
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

If you don't buy the insurance you can't have the gun? That would make it a restriction on the right to bear arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who is Noe?

Sorry...
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

If you don't buy the insurance you can't have the gun? That would make it a restriction on the right to bear arms.

Yeah, but.. dig this... the 2nd doesn't state that the government can't force you to buy insurance for your gun, so it isn't an infringement.

 

[Slyhunter]

Sorry...
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

If you don't buy the insurance you can't have the gun? That would make it a restriction on the right to bear arms.

Yeah, but.. dig this... the 2nd doesn't state that the government can't force you to buy insurance for your gun, so it isn't an infringement.

It doesn't say the government can't force you to buy roses for your gun either, but if we changed the law requiring a rose for every gun it would still be an infringement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

If you don't buy the insurance you can't have the gun? That would make it a restriction on the right to bear arms.

Yeah, but.. dig this... the 2nd doesn't state that the government can't force you to buy insurance for your gun, so it isn't an infringement.

It doesn't say the government can't force you to buy roses for your gun either, but if we changed the law requiring a rose for every gun it would still be an infringement.

Of course.
Candy's argument is absurd on its face; the only person who doesn't understand this is Candy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican | Page 33 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



I'll take "Candy is too scared to answer" for $2000, Alex.

 

[jc456]

I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is. The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.

Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them frequently train to hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican. Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.

"Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!

Greg

Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV

so who does all the shooting and killing in the inner cities?

 

[S.J.]

I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is. The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.

Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them frequently train to hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican. Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.

"Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!

Greg

Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV

so who does all the shooting and killing in the inner cities?

That doesn't count, it's not on the news.

 

[jc456]

I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is. The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.

Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them frequently train to hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican. Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.

"Like a Marine"???? btw: a liberal on another thread is named "wobbly". he's a nutter, as is a lefty Kiwi called cnm. Both as lefty as any other pondscum!!

Greg

Yes, like a Marine! After all it was an ex-Marine who committed the first mass murder on a US campus... In Texas of all places. Charles Whitman commandeered the clock tower at the University of Texas with an arsenal of weapons which he used to shoot 43 people with precision sniping, killing 13 of them before he was finally shot and killed. He was no Liberal and neither were the perps in the following link:
Poll finds eighty percent of serial killers vote Republican - ScrapeTV

so who does all the shooting and killing in the inner cities?

That doesn't count, it's not on the news.

bingo!!!!!

The only thing on the news is nightly news updates with the deaths of little inner city kids and the daily march down the street that black lives matter. Still unclear who that is directed at.

 

[Synthaholic]

And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...

All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.

Hey genius. The shooter is mixed race.
FAIL

Shouldn't you be directing this to Obiwan - you know, the one who said he was a White Supremacist?

 

[Synthaholic]

And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...

All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.

Guess again, Retard...
View attachment 51512

Guess again . . . what?

Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative. So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?

Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?

I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.

 

[jc456]

And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...

All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.

Guess again, Retard...
View attachment 51512

Guess again . . . what?

Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative. So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?

Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?

I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.

why does he need to defend them. Did they do something? I missed it in the paper.

 

[theHawk]

What kind of prancing sissy thinks a black guy who targetted christians is a white supremacist conservative?

The same people that think a cross-dressing faggot is a female just because he self-identifies as a "woman."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

(posted 21 mins ago)

Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi's

"Oregon gunman despised organized religion, idolized IRA and Nazi’s

Yep... Straight, down the line Prog. ANOTHER obama constituent: DOWN!