Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

[thereisnospoon]

Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
Every time.

Point to where it says that in the constitution

Oh... THAT game. OK...
A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
Surely, you agree.

In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested. Thanks for proving my point.

No..Your idea fails in the category of common sense and logic.
Your idea is a simplistic over reaction to an event that has tragically repeated itself all too often.
Your idea seeks to strip the rights of all.
The typically liberal response is to punish the innocent to get to the guilty. Low hanging fruit.

Factually incorrect. Everyone who wants to buy a gun can buy one. Not one gun currently in circulation will be confiscated unless it is used in a crime. Do you have something against that boy?

No, it isn't......The typical all or nothing straw man response seen from the left indicates that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You seem to ignore the word "regulated".

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the "regulated" militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hmmmm....doesn't change my point.

It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.

The term regulated speaks specifically to militia.....
What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

Different members of the court now. These people actually seem to read the papers.

So you get to disagree with the Supreme Court cause you don't like a ruling but anyone else is stupid ignorant or high if they disagree right?

Stupid? No.
Ignorant? Not really. Those who vow defiance are pretty ignorant. Those who practice defiance are incredibly ignorant.
High? Not sure. Depends on the person.

I can think of a number of laws on the books that are useless and are way too restrictive. Do I obey them? Yes. But I think they are ignorant.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

I support all Supreme Court decisions. I don't like them all.

If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling. This is why it is important to elect HRC. You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.

Again, it is humorous how you guys bitch and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.

 

[candycorn]

Different members of the court now. These people actually seem to read the papers.

Heller majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
McDonnel Majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
What's changed?

The scarlett tide of blood from people who haven't reached puberty may change the minds of some justices. Changing some justices will undobutedly do the same.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

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"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.

The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.

Which was likely their intent. We've just interpreted it differently. A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Which was likely their intent.

Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!

A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.

Remains to be seen. Right now, her chances look very good for not only winning but replacing Scalia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.

The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.

Which was likely their intent. We've just interpreted it differently. A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Which was likely their intent.

Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!

A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.

Remains to be seen. Right now, her chances look very good for not only winning but replacing Scalia.

She can't win if she's indicted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

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, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

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.

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

 

[candycorn]

The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.

The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.

Which was likely their intent. We've just interpreted it differently. A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Which was likely their intent.

Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!

A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.

Remains to be seen. Right now, her chances look very good for not only winning but replacing Scalia.

She can't win if she's indicted.

She won't be indicted and she will win.

 

[candycorn]

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

 

[candycorn]

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?

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

An infringement is an infringement. You cannot argue one and not argue the other. Sorry.

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, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

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.

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

Not sure what you are arguing here. Not that it matters. Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.

 

[candycorn]

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

No. I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

No. I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

For instance, the change in the number of states that allow concealed carry.
You're on the wrong side of history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

An infringement is an infringement. You cannot argue one and not argue the other. Sorry.

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, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

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.

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

Not sure what you are arguing here. Not that it matters. Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.

Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.

So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An infringement is an infringement. You cannot argue one and not argue the other. Sorry.

You are absolutely, demonstrably and willfully, incorrect.
Proof that you understand your argument here has failed.

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

Not sure what you are arguing here

I'm arguing that your "plan" will -not- prevent mass shootings, as you claim, because people will still have access to guns.
That being the case, there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to consider your idea in any way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

No. I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

Does not make your commentary any less meaningless.

 

[candycorn]

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

No. I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

For instance, the change in the number of states that allow concealed carry.
You're on the wrong side of history.

Now that is hilarious. Thanks for another reason to laugh at the gun crazies.

 

[candycorn]

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling.

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

No. I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

Does not make your commentary any less meaningless.

Yet here you are asking for more of it. Couple this with your blood lust and you likely have some mental problems.