Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. Your response had nothing to do with the comment.Look at you, incapable of comprehending an on point comment (too abstract to break through your biases I see).Look at you, completely unaware you responded with an non-seq.Do we have the right to run red lights? Steal from stores? Molest children? I guess we are a police state, though rational people consider us to be a nation of laws.In a polce state, they do. That's what he wants.We do not punish people by curbing their rights because they might do something.
it's all a fantasy. The vast maj of murders are by people who are known to the victim. Not because they are walking down the STREETS OF DODGE.
If anyone wants a firearm, they are widely available. LOL
No one is banning guns. That's the one sure thing the Sup Ct has told us.OK let's take a new tack here
People say the right to bear arms is responsible for too many deaths and use the argument that you never know when a person is going to kill someone with a gun so no one should have guns, or no one should have certain types of guns, or no one should have a certain number of guns so to protect all people we must preemptively control the behavior of all people because they might kill.
So now let me give you thins information
Alcohol and Crime | SASC
Alcohol is a factor in 40% of all violent crimes today
Now if I use the same methodology I could argue that if we banned alcohol then we would see a 40% reduction in all violent crimes because anyone who drinks might commit a crime and you never know when it will happen.
No one is banning guns. That's the one sure thing the Sup Ct has told us.OK let's take a new tack here
People say the right to bear arms is responsible for too many deaths and use the argument that you never know when a person is going to kill someone with a gun so no one should have guns, or no one should have certain types of guns, or no one should have a certain number of guns so to protect all people we must preemptively control the behavior of all people because they might kill.
So now let me give you thins information
Alcohol and Crime | SASC
Alcohol is a factor in 40% of all violent crimes today
Now if I use the same methodology I could argue that if we banned alcohol then we would see a 40% reduction in all violent crimes because anyone who drinks might commit a crime and you never know when it will happen.
You'd do better not assert facts that just aren't true. Such as the OP. Very few of the actual homicides happen because a person didn't have a pistole on their hip so they could outdraw their assailant.
You might ask the question as to whether a particular proposed regulation actually has at least the potential for a positive. For example, a gun sale that occurs within a family ... what good can arise from making that sale need a background check, and is any good possibly worth whatever burden occurs?.
That makes no sense at all.
First of all, states existed first.
Only existing states can create a national government that is a federation of independent states.
And the 2nd amendment, like all amendments in the Bill of Rights is ONLY a restriction on the federal government.
None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is an explicit restriction on states.
Read the Bill of Rights. For example, the 1st amendment. It says:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ....
Clearly all the amendments in the Bill of Rights were written with the same intent.
It is all only restriction on the federation, not the states.
After the Civil War and the 14th amendment, only then did the SCOTUS start to try to imply individual rights from the Bill of Rights, and start curtailing abuses by states.
But that is indirect and very controversial.
The 2nd Amendment was 'incorporated' into Law applicable to the States. It is 'Fully Incorporated'. The 5th, 6th and 8th are partially so and the 3rd and 7th are not incorporated at all.
So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country moreIt's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.
As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.
Straw man. How many have been killed by the other nine Bill of Rights?
Not a straw man at all
Are all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights equivalent or not?
Why not let states vote on the legality of abortion or public accommodation laws or whether or not you have freedom of religion and speech in that state?
You can't selectively enforce the Constitution
So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country more
As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.
Straw man. How many have been killed by the other nine Bill of Rights?
Not a straw man at all
Are all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights equivalent or not?
Why not let states vote on the legality of abortion or public accommodation laws or whether or not you have freedom of religion and speech in that state?
You can't selectively enforce the Constitution
Statement: "You can't selectively enforce the Constitution"
Response: True, I can't. However five of nine members of the Supreme Court do so regularly.
you could say that about school......but guess what.......criminals go to where the easy targets areI carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.
Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.
Look at you, completely unaware you responded with an non-seq.Do we have the right to run red lights? Steal from stores? Molest children? I guess we are a police state, though rational people consider us to be a nation of laws.In a polce state, they do. That's what he wants.We do not punish people by curbing their rights because they might do something.
Look at you, incapable of comprehending an on point comment (too abstract to break through your biases I see).
No. Your response had nothing to do with the comment.
None of the things you listed are an example of exercising a right; as such, they have nothing to do with restraining of the exercise of a right because someone migt commit a crime.
Thus, non seq.
Look at you, completely unaware you responded with an non-seq.Do we have the right to run red lights? Steal from stores? Molest children? I guess we are a police state, though rational people consider us to be a nation of laws.In a polce state, they do. That's what he wants.
Look at you, incapable of comprehending an on point comment (too abstract to break through your biases I see).
No. Your response had nothing to do with the comment.
None of the things you listed are an example of exercising a right; as such, they have nothing to do with restraining of the exercise of a right because someone migt commit a crime.
Thus, non seq.
Sure they do. You're confusing a right and a privilege. The privilege is the license, driving with a license is a right, regulated by the vehicle code.
CA has. NY NJ MD CT have.No one is banning guns. That's the one sure thing the Sup Ct has told us.
You cannot cite anything form me that's not true.You'd do better not assert facts that just aren't true. Such as the OP.
So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.
Straw man. How many have been killed by the other nine Bill of Rights?
Not a straw man at all
Are all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights equivalent or not?
Why not let states vote on the legality of abortion or public accommodation laws or whether or not you have freedom of religion and speech in that state?
You can't selectively enforce the Constitution
Statement: "You can't selectively enforce the Constitution"
Response: True, I can't. However five of nine members of the Supreme Court do so regularly.
No they don't they vote upon an issue and the result is one ruling or do you think all votes have to be unanimous to count?
And FYI the Supreme Court does not enforce laws
Driving on the roads is a privilege granted by the state, not a right.Look at you, completely unaware you responded with an non-seq.Do we have the right to run red lights? Steal from stores? Molest children? I guess we are a police state, though rational people consider us to be a nation of laws.In a polce state, they do. That's what he wants.
Look at you, incapable of comprehending an on point comment (too abstract to break through your biases I see).
No. Your response had nothing to do with the comment.
None of the things you listed are an example of exercising a right; as such, they have nothing to do with restraining of the exercise of a right because someone migt commit a crime.
Thus, non seq.
Sure they do. You're confusing a right and a privilege. The privilege is the license, driving with a license is a right, regulated by the vehicle code.
No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.No one is banning guns. That's the one sure thing the Sup Ct has told us.OK let's take a new tack here
People say the right to bear arms is responsible for too many deaths and use the argument that you never know when a person is going to kill someone with a gun so no one should have guns, or no one should have certain types of guns, or no one should have a certain number of guns so to protect all people we must preemptively control the behavior of all people because they might kill.
So now let me give you thins information
Alcohol and Crime | SASC
Alcohol is a factor in 40% of all violent crimes today
Now if I use the same methodology I could argue that if we banned alcohol then we would see a 40% reduction in all violent crimes because anyone who drinks might commit a crime and you never know when it will happen.
You'd do better not assert facts that just aren't true. Such as the OP. Very few of the actual homicides happen because a person didn't have a pistole on their hip so they could outdraw their assailant.
You might ask the question as to whether a particular proposed regulation actually has at least the potential for a positive. For example, a gun sale that occurs within a family ... what good can arise from making that sale need a background check, and is any good possibly worth whatever burden occurs?.
I guess you missed all the other things I wrote to solely focus on that right? And yes some people want gun bans. Denying that is disingenuous.
And if a person draws on an assailant that is not a crime as it would fall under self defense laws.
So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?
Straw man. How many have been killed by the other nine Bill of Rights?
Not a straw man at all
Are all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights equivalent or not?
Why not let states vote on the legality of abortion or public accommodation laws or whether or not you have freedom of religion and speech in that state?
You can't selectively enforce the Constitution
Statement: "You can't selectively enforce the Constitution"
Response: True, I can't. However five of nine members of the Supreme Court do so regularly.
No they don't they vote upon an issue and the result is one ruling or do you think all votes have to be unanimous to count?
And FYI the Supreme Court does not enforce laws
Of course they do; think about it. Link below.
"The first time the U.S. Congress ever met, they signed into law the Judiciary Act of 1789. This law established the federal courts and a law enforcement service to protect them and enforce their decisions.
How U.S. Marshals Work
I love how you contradict yourself. Well done.No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.
Cite?The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets.
No place will ever be able to ban all guns. Is that simple enough for you to read-comprehend?I love how you contradict yourself. Well done.No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.
Cite?The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets.
