The Right To Bear Arms

[Papageorgio]

yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever mentioned

it must be up to the conscience of the individual.

And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.

I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.

a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all

my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn

you only care about natural rights in abortion threads. you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.

One stupid moronic statement followed by another. Your stupidity knows no bounds.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it must be up to the conscience of the individual.

And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.

I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.

a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all

my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn

you only care about natural rights in abortion threads. you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.

One stupid moronic statement followed by another. Your stupidity knows no bounds.

If you are chatting with danielpalos, I recommend the Ignore function.

He is full of bullshit and canned responses. He never justifies a single position with any relevant authority. He is simply full of shit.

Ignore.

.

 

[TRFjr]

yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever mentioned

it must be up to the conscience of the individual.

And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.

I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.

a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all

my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn

you only care about natural rights in abortion threads. you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.

so tell me what other natural rights are you are assuming I don't care about?

 

[hadit]

Doesn't matter who complains about it.

Yes, it does. The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.

Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.

get well regulated, don't be lazy.

Get a clue, don't be dogmatic.

i have a clue. it is about equality regardless of wealth under the socialism of our supreme law of the land.

How is that related to guns?

 

[danielpalos]

it must be up to the conscience of the individual.

And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.

I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.

a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all

my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn

you only care about natural rights in abortion threads. you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.

so tell me what other natural rights are you are assuming I don't care about?

i need to play word games with you for around an hour.

“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than a year of conversation.”—Plato.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.

Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.

get well regulated, don't be lazy.

Get a clue, don't be dogmatic.

i have a clue. it is about equality regardless of wealth under the socialism of our supreme law of the land.

How is that related to guns?

You could simply enroll to become organized.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo....

Someday, you will, somehow, add something meaningful to some conversation, somewhere.
Today is not that day.

 

[hadit]

Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.

get well regulated, don't be lazy.

Get a clue, don't be dogmatic.

i have a clue. it is about equality regardless of wealth under the socialism of our supreme law of the land.

How is that related to guns?

You could simply enroll to become organized.

Irrelevant.

 

[Lakhota]

ANOTHER NRA BOARD MEMBER JUMPS SHIP!

 

[Papageorgio]

ANOTHER NRA BOARD MEMBER JUMPS SHIP!

Dream on nut job.

 

[hunarcy]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter. THAT is being a dick and you should stop it.

 

[hunarcy]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
In WWII it was carbines.

There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.

If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.

So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week? That makes no sense at all.
Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.

An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines. Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds. No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons. Don't be a Dick.

I can see that the idea of a magazine with more than 5 rounds made you pee yourself in fear. That's sad.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter. THAT is being a dick and you should stop it.

Don't expect Kemosabe to make any sense. The gun killed all his worthless idiot people.

I would hate guns too if I were an injun.



.

 

[Papageorgio]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

Why is it that when law enforcement shoots a criminal, it’s law enforcement’s fault. When a nut job goes out and does a mass shooting it’s the guns fault?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[watchingfromafar]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter. THAT is being a dick and you should stop it.

Don't expect Kemosabe to make any sense. The gun killed all his worthless idiot people.

I would hate guns too if I were an injun.



.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Don't be a Dick. Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!

By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter. THAT is being a dick and you should stop it.
Don't expect Kemosabe to make any sense. The gun killed all his worthless idiot people.
I would hate guns too if I were an injun




Bootney Lee Farnsworth,..,.,,.I see you
you feel the warmth of my piss
on your face
right now--
-
o8/30/2019
9:54 pm
cst (;-

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong."

Of course they’re wrong.

‘In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly said so, in a 2008 case called Heller. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court's most principled conservatives at the time. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." (The case itself concerned gun laws in Washington, D.C.)

In other words, while the Second Amendment does generally allow for gun ownership, it has left specificity for modern-day jurists, legislators and voters to debate.’ ibid

And there’s nothing ‘new’ about this ruling, it’s a reaffirmation of the settled, accepted fact – beyond dispute – that no right is ‘unlimited,’ including the Second Amendment right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law

so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time! It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future. There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.

Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.

No, you are entirely wrong.
The SCOTUS opened the floodgate and can't back up now.
An assault weapons ban would mean 40 million people would become criminals and there would be a civil war the first time an innocent gun owner was murdered by a corrupt government in violation of the ex post facto article in the Constitution.
Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: on Ex Post Facto laws being illegal.

{... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ...}

Guide to the Constitution

That means that assault weapons have been legally purchased and owned, so now can not be made illegal and confiscated.

The SCOTUS can NOT at all do whatever it wants.
It has to remain true to the rules and basic premise of a democratic republic.
And if you can ban certain types of weapons, magazines, etc., from the general public, then the police, military, etc., must also be banned. The authority of public employees, like the SCOTUS, police, military, etc., comes from the inherent rights of individuals. They can not have authority above that of the general public, in a democratic republic.

If the second can be perverted by a mere court vote, so can the first. I wonder how keen the anti gun activists would be to have their internet ramblings carefully controlled so as not to offend anyone who supports Trump.

To support firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law is not to be ‘anti-gun’ – the notion is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

 

[Lakhota]