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

[Rustic]

Is that. The only difference??

yawn.

Deflection

you wish ....

Still no answer, what makes a military grade weapon??

yawn

Still deflecting, Nancy

 

[daws101]

yawn.

Deflection

you wish ....

Still no answer, what makes a military grade weapon??

yawn

Still deflecting, Nancy

false ! what I am doing is laughing at your stupid ass
while you waste time on nonsense.

 

[Rustic]

Deflection

you wish ....

Still no answer, what makes a military grade weapon??

yawn

Still deflecting, Nancy

false ! what I am doing is laughing at your stupid ass
while you waste time on nonsense.

Just admit it, you can't name the differences between an m-4 military grade and a ar15 hunt'n/sporting rifle...
Lol

 

[Little-Acorn]

As usual, you hide behind childish name calling.

Oops, did I call somebody "nutters"?

Didn't realize I had done that.

My apologies.

Back to the subject:

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.

 

[daws101]

you wish ....

Still no answer, what makes a military grade weapon??

yawn

Still deflecting, Nancy

false ! what I am doing is laughing at your stupid ass
while you waste time on nonsense.

Just admit it, you can't name the differences between an m-4 military grade and a ar15 hunt'n/sporting rifle...
Lol

Why would I admit to a lie.

 

[Contumacious]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.
*snip of copyright violation*

funny... if you actually read Heller it says only a total ban is illegal. it specifically says that reasonable regulation is ok.

so maybe you should take that hint.

and while we're at it... you should probably take the hint that abortion is legal no matter what rightwing theocrats say.

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

 

[daws101]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.
*snip of copyright violation*

funny... if you actually read Heller it says only a total ban is illegal. it specifically says that reasonable regulation is ok.

so maybe you should take that hint.

and while we're at it... you should probably take the hint that abortion is legal no matter what rightwing theocrats say.

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

 

[Contumacious]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.
*snip of copyright violation*

funny... if you actually read Heller it says only a total ban is illegal. it specifically says that reasonable regulation is ok.

so maybe you should take that hint.

and while we're at it... you should probably take the hint that abortion is legal no matter what rightwing theocrats say.

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

Why don't you change your handle to "slave101"?


.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

What you think and reality are diametrically opposed.

The sad part is you actually believe that.

 

[daws101]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.
*snip of copyright violation*

funny... if you actually read Heller it says only a total ban is illegal. it specifically says that reasonable regulation is ok.

so maybe you should take that hint.

and while we're at it... you should probably take the hint that abortion is legal no matter what rightwing theocrats say.

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

Why don't you change your handle to "slave101"?


.

the willfully ignorant are hilarious ..

 

[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.

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.

What you think and reality are diametrically opposed.

The sad part is you actually believe that.

thanks again fro proving my point for me ...
THE BLOG
It is All Obama's Fault: The Republican Twilight Zone
04/07/2009 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011
It is All Obama's Fault: The Republican Twilight Zone

 

[Contumacious]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.
*snip of copyright violation*

funny... if you actually read Heller it says only a total ban is illegal. it specifically says that reasonable regulation is ok.

so maybe you should take that hint.

and while we're at it... you should probably take the hint that abortion is legal no matter what rightwing theocrats say.

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

Why don't you change your handle to "slave101"?


.

the willfully ignorant are hilarious ..

Those who volunteer to be slaves , those who volunteer to be tyrannize are a phenomenon.

.

 

[Nosmo King]

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."

Guns for the criminally insane! Guns for felons!

Ah! Guns! Is there nothing they cannot do?

 

[daws101]

funny... if you actually read Heller it says only a total ban is illegal. it specifically says that reasonable regulation is ok.

so maybe you should take that hint.

and while we're at it... you should probably take the hint that abortion is legal no matter what rightwing theocrats say.

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

Why don't you change your handle to "slave101"?


.

the willfully ignorant are hilarious ..

Those who volunteer to be slaves , those who volunteer to be tyrannize are a phenomenon.

.

what's it like to be enslaved and tyrannize by paranoia and ignorance.?

 

[daws101]

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."

Guns for the criminally insane! Guns for felons!

Ah! Guns! Is there nothing they cannot do?

 

[Contumacious]

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

Why don't you change your handle to "slave101"?


.

the willfully ignorant are hilarious ..

Those who volunteer to be slaves , those who volunteer to be tyrannize are a phenomenon.

.

what's it like to be enslaved and tyrannize by paranoia and ignorance.?

paranoia, hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

so its not true that fedgov has a massive domestic army?

So its not true that the executive branch attempted to abolish SCOTUS, circa 1935?

So its not true that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground?

 

[hadit]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

But how are you going to get rid of all humanity if you get rid of all the guns? It simply doesn't add up.

 

[Contumacious]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

But how are you going to get rid of all humanity if you get rid of all the guns? It simply doesn't add up.

Are they trying to get rid of Humanity in Switzerland?


Swiss Voters Turn Back Gun Control Referendum

 

[daws101]

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

Why don't you change your handle to "slave101"?


.

the willfully ignorant are hilarious ..

Those who volunteer to be slaves , those who volunteer to be tyrannize are a phenomenon.

.

what's it like to be enslaved and tyrannize by paranoia and ignorance.?

paranoia, hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

so its not true that fedgov has a massive domestic army?

So its not true that the executive branch attempted to abolish SCOTUS, circa 1935?

So its not true that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground?

thanks again for proving me correct.
that attempt failed, so other than historical trivia it's meaningless.
if by army you mean national guard then yes, it does.
like all paranoids you believe it's out to get you.

 

[daws101]

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

Tipped it? No, I want complete gun control, AKA, no guns.

I also want world peace.

But how are you going to get rid of all humanity if you get rid of all the guns? It simply doesn't add up.

Are they trying to get rid of Humanity in Switzerland?


Swiss Voters Turn Back Gun Control Referendum

false comparison