Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun

[daws101]

Hey asshole the reason they presented it as fact because it was .
Since it had already been established as fact proving it was unessarry.

In a court of law you have to prove it. You don't get to just assume the central issue of the case. It was never "established" by anything other than the FBI's say-so.

Douche nozzle.

You really can't read can you .
There was no legal or Logical to establish it.
The weapons themselves had already done that.
Also shit for brains the FBI has the authority. It's on the defense to prove if the FBI wrong.

No one has any "authority" in a court of law. The defense wasn't able to examine the weapons, so anything the FBI said about them proves exactly nothing.

You're an idiot.

False ! the prosecution and the judge have authority then the jury gets it.
If the defense chose not to examine the weapons that's on them to.

You think the prosecution determines what the facts are? You'e a moron in addition to being a douche nozzle.

No, the evidence does that .
You really are a slow witted as you seem

 

[daws101]

That would spoil all the fun.

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

Leftwingers who shoot up schools and movie theaters are the ones who give gun owners a bad name.

You'll let me know if that ever happens.

 

[bripat9643]

In a court of law you have to prove it. You don't get to just assume the central issue of the case. It was never "established" by anything other than the FBI's say-so.

Douche nozzle.

You really can't read can you .
There was no legal or Logical to establish it.
The weapons themselves had already done that.
Also shit for brains the FBI has the authority. It's on the defense to prove if the FBI wrong.

No one has any "authority" in a court of law. The defense wasn't able to examine the weapons, so anything the FBI said about them proves exactly nothing.

You're an idiot.

False ! the prosecution and the judge have authority then the jury gets it.
If the defense chose not to examine the weapons that's on them to.

You think the prosecution determines what the facts are? You'e a moron in addition to being a douche nozzle.

No, the evidence does that .
You really are a slow witted as you seem

The evidence has to be presented and cross examined by the defense. That never happened.

 

[bripat9643]

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

Leftwingers who shoot up schools and movie theaters are the ones who give gun owners a bad name.

You'll let me know if that ever happens.

it already has multiple times.

 

[daws101]

You really can't read can you .
There was no legal or Logical to establish it.
The weapons themselves had already done that.
Also shit for brains the FBI has the authority. It's on the defense to prove if the FBI wrong.

No one has any "authority" in a court of law. The defense wasn't able to examine the weapons, so anything the FBI said about them proves exactly nothing.

You're an idiot.

False ! the prosecution and the judge have authority then the jury gets it.
If the defense chose not to examine the weapons that's on them to.

You think the prosecution determines what the facts are? You'e a moron in addition to being a douche nozzle.

No, the evidence does that .
You really are a slow witted as you seem

The evidence has to be presented and cross examined by the defense. That never happened.

Link?

 

[Conservative65]

Please tell me when you plan to personally try.

That would spoil all the fun.

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

You're the kind of coward that causes gun haters to have the name you have.

False courage? You mean the kind you have by saying something should take place but not having the guts to try it himself?

As the saying goes, it's the man with one that deals with idiots who think he shouldn't have it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, ignore the content, and hope somebody believes me somehow instead of you.

 

[daws101]

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

Leftwingers who shoot up schools and movie theaters are the ones who give gun owners a bad name.

You'll let me know if that ever happens.

it already has multiple times.

False most all mass shootings are committed by right wing extremists or the mental ill.
Not one has ever said or been proven to politically liberal.
The same cannot be said for rightwinger shooters.
The guy who shot all those black church goers proves it
Also the guy who shot up the sheikh temples
Rightwinger.
Do I need to continue?

 

[Clementine]

It's not just guns, either. The leftists want power over everybody and everything. It's the marxist way.

Yet, they don't express concern for high crime in areas, like Chicago, or terrorists. They seem to go after NRA members mostly. When a homeowner shoots home invaders, there is often more criticism of the homeowner. They really hate seeing criminals get shot by would-be victims. The way they talk about gun control, which would only affect the honest people, you'd think they want us to become victims of criminals. Why else would they be so hell bent on taking away our right to defend ourselves?

 

[daws101]

That would spoil all the fun.

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

You're the kind of coward that causes gun haters to have the name you have.

False courage? You mean the kind you have by saying something should take place but not having the guts to try it himself?

As the saying goes, it's the man with one that deals with idiots who think he shouldn't have it.

Never said it should take place .
If it did, I can just about guarantee that all faux bravado you've spewed will end you.

 

[daws101]

The longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, ignore the content, and hope somebody believes me somehow instead of you.

False, no need to refute bullshit.
It's self refuting.
Next!

 

[bripat9643]

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

Leftwingers who shoot up schools and movie theaters are the ones who give gun owners a bad name.

You'll let me know if that ever happens.

it already has multiple times.

False most all mass shootings are committed by right wing extremists or the mental ill.
Not one has ever said or been proven to politically liberal.
The same cannot be said for rightwinger shooters.
The guy who shot all those black church goers proves it
Also the guy who shot up the sheikh temples
Rightwinger.
Do I need to continue?

Hmmmm, no, that's complete bullshit. The lamestreammedia always assumes a right-winger did they shooting, but that always turns out to not be the case.

What are the "sheikh temples?"

– Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
– Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
– Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
– James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
– Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
– Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
– James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.
– Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
– Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
– Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
– Bill Ayers, Weather Underground bomber – Leftist Democrat.
– Lee Harvey Oswald, Socialist, Communist and Democrat – killed Kennedy…

 

[daws101]

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

Leftwingers who shoot up schools and movie theaters are the ones who give gun owners a bad name.

You'll let me know if that ever happens.

it already has multiple times.

False most all mass shootings are committed by right wing extremists or the mental ill.
Not one has ever said or been proven to politically liberal.
The same cannot be said for rightwinger shooters.
The guy who shot all those black church goers proves it
Also the guy who shot up the sheikh temples
Rightwinger.
Do I need to continue?

Hmmmm, no, that's complete bullshit. The lamestreammedia always assumes a right-winger did they shooting, but that always turns out to not be the case.

What are the "sheikh temples?"

– Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
– Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
– Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
– James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
– Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
– Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
– James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.
– Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
– Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
– Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
– Bill Ayers, Weather Underground bomber – Leftist Democrat.
– Lee Harvey Oswald, Socialist, Communist and Democrat – killed Kennedy…

Link or its bullshit.

 

[daws101]

Study: White Terrorists Deadlier Than Islamists in the U.S.

 

[daws101]

I win.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.

The 2nd amendment says in modern language, that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.

Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.

If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?

Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?

Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?

The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.

The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.

But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.

If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.

-----------------------------------------------

This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years

This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years

Business Insider
By Erin Fuchs
Feb. 29, 2016
20 hours ago

The case that spurred Thomas' torrent of questions centered on whether a "reckless" domestic-assault conviction counts as a federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that would carry with it a lifetime firearm ban. Thirty-four states have "reckless" assault laws that hold people accountable for carelessness that injures somebody else even when they don't necessarily intend harm, according to SCOTUSBlog.

Thomas' line of questioning seemed to suggest that he didn't favor gun bans for misdemeanor domestic-violence offenders and thought such bans could be a slippery slope leading to the denial of other constitutional rights for people convicted of misdemeanors.

"Can you give me a — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor question suspends a constitutional right?" Thomas asked Eisenstein, according to the court transcript.

The usually silent justice may have spoken up because neither side had addressed this question in the briefs they filed, according to Winkler.

"Thomas's question was an important one. Why is the right to bear arms is the only right that people lose for a misdemeanor?" Winkler asked in his email, before going ahead and answering the question himself.

"The answer is recidivism. Even though some domestic violence is only a misdemeanor, it shows a propensity to engage in violence," Winkler added. "Violent people shouldn't have access to guns."

Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun...?

No, the fact is government has plenty of say and we have the law to prove it.

 

[Rustic]

your point?

Bottom line: no one was ever convicted of using automatic weapons at waco.

Progressives don't know what so called "automatic weapons" are...
They just believe whatever they see in the movies.

Do you enjoy being wrong all the time?

Tell us the difference between a sporting weapon and a military grade weapon, more importantly show us??

You first!

You tell me, top or bottom and why.
One is over the counter common hunt'n rifle, the other is a fully auto military grade m-4...

 

[Little-Acorn]

Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun...?

No, the fact is government has plenty of say and we have the law to prove it.

The usual deluded liberals. Sort of like saying that since the bank robber successfully got away with the loot, that means it's OK for bank robbers to rob banks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun...?

No, the fact is government has plenty of say and we have the law to prove it.

The usual deluded liberals. Sort of like saying that since the bank robber successfully got away with the loot, that means it's OK for bank robbers to rob banks.

The usual ignorance and stupidity from conservatives – no rights are 'absolute,' the notion is ignorant idiocy; and all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including the Second Amendment right:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]
[…]
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The First Amendment does not protect speech advocating for imminent violence or lawlessness, or speech designated as defamation, or speech that could result in real harm, such as disclosing the location of soldiers during wartime.

Likewise, Second Amendment jurisprudence authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on the acquisition and possession of firearms, such as licensing requirements, background checks, and laws forbidding felons and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms.

And spare us the moronic rightwing nonsense about how the Supreme Court 'lacks the authority' to interpret the Constitution, or that sometimes the Supreme Court 'gets it wrong,' and similar lame, inane, wrongheaded 'arguments.'

 

[Conservative65]

The fun would happen if you're stupid enough to make that kind of mistake.

That kind of over confedence has killed more men then cancer.

The kind of mistake you talk about making has done more than that. I'll consider you the typical gun hater that runs his mouth yet doesn't have the guts to do anything close to what he says should be done.

And you'd be wrong twice.

You're the kind of gun owner that gives gun ownership a bad name.
My guess is without the false courage it gives you , you'd pull your skirts up and run away.
As the saying goes it's the man not the weapon.

You're the kind of coward that causes gun haters to have the name you have.

False courage? You mean the kind you have by saying something should take place but not having the guts to try it himself?

As the saying goes, it's the man with one that deals with idiots who think he shouldn't have it.

Never said it should take place .
If it did, I can just about guarantee that all faux bravado you've spewed will end you.

IF you did? That gives you a cowardly out. Run puss. Didn't think you have the guts and you've proven it.