What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[M14 Shooter]

[
There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you...

This is, of course, a lie of omission.
A petulant, pedantic and sophomoric lie of omission, but a lie none the less.

 

[Kondor3]

1. Nobody can buy or sell or loan or borrow or otherwise possess a gun without a license

2. Nobody can obtain a license without passing a Federal criminal background check

3. Each and every sale, gifting, loan, inheritance or other transfer, must ensure that the recipient currently holds a valid license

4. Each and every sale, gifting, loan, inheritance or other transfer may only be made to recipients who have a State-approved training and safety education certificate particular to that class of weapon

5. Each and every sale, gifting, loan, inheritance or other transfer must ensure that the transaction is reported to the State

6. Each and every weapon must be registered with the State

7. Mandatory refresher training for each class of weapons owned, every 5 to 10 years

8. Mandatory license renewal once every 5 years

9. Revocation of license and training certificates and seizure of weapons upon conviction or plea-bargaining for domestic violence, assault and battery charges, hospitalization for mental health problems, etc., with a State -level appeals board to provide recourse for those who believe they have been wrongfully treated in this context

10. Crucifixion (metaphorical, legal) for those who violate related laws.

11. Mandatory and real-time exchange between Federal and State computer databases related to Licensing, Certifications, background checks, registrations, criminal convictions, etc.

12. Very few limits on the types of weapons and ammunition and quantities that may be bought or sold or possessed.

13. Financial compensation for those whose weapons are seized during the course of license and/or training certification or registration revocation actions.

...and whatever-the-hell-else that the American People think best, as we struggle to find a balance between Constitutionality and Safety in our present age.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You presume to know things you can't possibly know....

If this precluded people from posting, your count with quickly reduce to near zero.
Go ahead - lie some more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege....

This is a lie.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
Common sense is not common in those with a gun fetish:

Or found in any of the restrictions you seek.

BULLSHIT

Truth hurts, eh?

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege....

This is a lie.

...since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony...

In accordance with your lie, above, voting is also a privilege.


Go ahead- lie some more - we both know it's all you can do.

I win. When the clowns begin to default to straw men and personal attacks, the point has been well made.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry won, the Giants won, the warriors are up by 14 at the half and the Sharks will play later - so far a very good day indeed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law, something you seem to acknowledge.

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

Then there is no rights whatsoever. Your right to privacy can be taken away. Your right to speech. Your right to assemble. ALL your rights can and are infringed on. So your contention is that no rights exist at all or do you just apply this asinine concept to the second amendment?

Which number of the Bill of Rights uses the phrase, "shall not be infringed"? Read the 4th and compare the differences between "shall not be infringed" and unreasonable search and seizures.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Or found in any of the restrictions you seek.

BULLSHIT

Truth hurts, eh?

Not at all. The 2nd A. Right is a privilege....

This is a lie.

...since it is denied to those who have been convicted of a felony...

In accordance with your lie, above, voting is also a privilege.

Go ahead- lie some more - we both know it's all you can do.

I win. When the clowns begin to default to straw men and personal attacks, the point has been well made.

Noting that your posts are lies are neither straw nor personal attacks; the fact that you have to lie to make a point means you know that you lose.
As usual.
Now, lie to us some more.

 

[Contumacious]

1. Nobody can buy or sell or loan or borrow or otherwise possess a gun without a license

2. Nobody can obtain a license without passing a Federal criminal background check

3. Each and every sale, gifting, loan, inheritance or other transfer, must ensure that the recipient currently holds a valid license

4. Each and every sale, gifting, loan, inheritance or other transfer may only be made to recipients who have a State-approved training and safety education certificate particular to that class of weapon

5. Each and every sale, gifting, loan, inheritance or other transfer must ensure that the transaction is reported to the State

6. Each and every weapon must be registered with the State

7. Mandatory refresher training for each class of weapons owned, every 5 to 10 years

8. Mandatory license renewal once every 5 years

9. Revocation of license and training certificates and seizure of weapons upon conviction or plea-bargaining for domestic violence, assault and battery charges, hospitalization for mental health problems, etc., with a State -level appeals board to provide recourse for those who believe they have been wrongfully treated in this context

10. Crucifixion (metaphorical, legal) for those who violate related laws.

11. Mandatory and real-time exchange between Federal and State computer databases related to Licensing, Certifications, background checks, registrations, criminal convictions, etc.

12. Very few limits on the types of weapons and ammunition and quantities that may be bought or sold or possessed.

13. Financial compensation for those whose weapons are seized during the course of license and/or training certification or registration revocation actions.

...and whatever-the-hell-else that the American People think best, as we struggle to find a balance between Constitutionality and Safety in our present age.

Bullshit

I do not need a license to defend my life.

How can you trust the federal bureaucracy as if they were angels, that is retarded to the max.

.

 

[Kondor3]

...I do not need a license to defend my life...

True. You do not need a license to carry a stick or a club or a stone or a lead-pipe.

...How can you trust the federal bureaucracy as if they were angels, that is retarded to the max..

Time for Federal standards for such things; they'll do just fine with the task.

 

[Contumacious]

...I do not need a license to defend my life...

True. You do not need a license to carry a stick or a club or a stone or a lead-pipe.

...How can you trust the federal bureaucracy as if they were angels, that is retarded to the max..

Time for Federal standards for such things; they'll do just fine with the task.

Bullshit


Would have Hitler approved Licenses for the Jews?


Would Bibi approve Licensing the Palestinians?


Would have Jefferson Davis approved licensing the Negroes?

Would have Pinochet approved licensing left wingers?


Ad nauseam

wake the fuck up


.

 

[kaz]

LOL, you still don't understand what your rights can be removed with due process of law means. You realize you're on the internet, Google will do your research for you. Why is it that hard? You enjoy wallowing in utter ignorance?

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law, something you seem to acknowledge.

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

So according to that logic, the right to vote, free speech, freedom from illegal search and seizure, freedom of religion and every other Constitutional right is a "privilege" as well and we have no rights since government can remove them at any time.

Seriously, you fucking douche bag idiotic moron. Learn what "due process of law" means. My God, you are a stupid, stupid man

 

[kaz]

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law, something you seem to acknowledge.

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

Then there is no rights whatsoever. Your right to privacy can be taken away. Your right to speech. Your right to assemble. ALL your rights can and are infringed on. So your contention is that no rights exist at all or do you just apply this asinine concept to the second amendment?

Which number of the Bill of Rights uses the phrase, "shall not be infringed"? Read the 4th and compare the differences between "shall not be infringed" and unreasonable search and seizures.

WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Which words do you not understand?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is it word salad ^^^ or the use of syntax by a non native English speaker?

There is nothing in the 2nd A. which allows for the Due Process of Law to curtail ( infringe upon) the so claimed Right argued by you and the other loons who believe, wrongly, that their interpretation of the 2nd is clear. It is not, it is at best ambiguous and that you cannot and will not ever acknowledge sense it will blow apart the only thing you have to form objections to a debate on gun control.

The facts are gun rights are restricted by laws and the Heller paradox did not clarify the debate details on gun control.

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law, something you seem to acknowledge.

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

So according to that logic, the right to vote, free speech, freedom from illegal search and seizure, freedom of religion and every other Constitutional right is a "privilege" as well and we have no rights since government can remove them at any time.

Seriously, you fucking douche bag idiotic moron. Learn what "due process of law" means. My God, you are a stupid, stupid man

Gee, aren't you a tough guy. Face to face you wouldn't have the balls to say that to my face. - Only punks use that sort of language and only when they are hiding behind a keyboard or holding a gun to someone's back.

 

[kaz]

No, dumb ass, it's the fifth amendment. They didn't do it amendment by amendment. Your liberty can be infringed with due process of law, as can your life and your property. They said it once. All of your rights can be limited with due process of law

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law, something you seem to acknowledge.

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

So according to that logic, the right to vote, free speech, freedom from illegal search and seizure, freedom of religion and every other Constitutional right is a "privilege" as well and we have no rights since government can remove them at any time.

Seriously, you fucking douche bag idiotic moron. Learn what "due process of law" means. My God, you are a stupid, stupid man

Gee, aren't you a tough guy. Face to face you wouldn't have the balls to say that to my face. - Only punks use that sort of language and only when they are hiding behind a keyboard or holding a gun to someone's back.

Once again you don't have a dick, you can't address what I said, Darlene

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gee, aren't you a tough guy. Face to face you wouldn't have the balls to say that to my face. - Only punks use that sort of language and only when they are hiding behind a keyboard or holding a gun to someone's back.

When the clowns begin to default to straw men and personal attacks, the point has been well made.

 

[Kondor3]

...I do not need a license to defend my life...

True. You do not need a license to carry a stick or a club or a stone or a lead-pipe.

...How can you trust the federal bureaucracy as if they were angels, that is retarded to the max..

Time for Federal standards for such things; they'll do just fine with the task.

Bullshit


Would have Hitler approved Licenses for the Jews?


Would Bibi approve Licensing the Palestinians?


Would have Jefferson Davis approved licensing the Negroes?

Would have Pinochet approved licensing left wingers?


Ad nauseam

wake the fuck up


.

" All hands !!! ... Stand by to repel Drama Queens... starboard...!!! "

 

[Little-Acorn]

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple:

That's right, you have no idea.

The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law,

Already refuted several posts before.
What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

Like saying that if a bank robber gets away with the money, that means that the entire premise ("robbing a bank is illegal and shouldn't be done"), is bogus.

Is it possible that anyone can be as twisted and confused as this silly liberal seems to be?

 

[jbrower157]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

That's as terrible plan. So when you commit a crime your taken off the list. What if your crime involved a gun. Defeats the purpose. Rather than prevent gun crime your giving a one time gun crime free card to anyone who's first sign of being a maniac involved a shooting. There's no way of regulating mental health short of enforcing regular mental screenings on everyone. Not gonna happen. The idea of attacking the problem at the mental level is not practical when a shooting can be the first sign of a problem that may not have existed much earlier.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You presume to know things you can't possibly know, since those who voted for COTUS and those who ratified the Bill of Rights didn't not all agree on each point. Thus much of COTUS, including the Bill of Rights, is left for interpretation. Deny that? And then you must explain why so many constitutional issues have been decided over the past 200 years (and why so many are not unanimous).

See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, everything you post and presume to know on Constitutional Issues are total BULLSHIT

The legislature has consistently passed restrictions on convicted felons removing their right to vote, their right to own or carry guns, their right to a warrant (parole officers can search their property with no warrant), their right to freedom of speech. They freaking lock them up. And the courts have upheld all of that.

You are the one saying what no one else is, that our Constitutional rights can't be violated WITH due process of law. The fifth amendment says otherwise. And no one is on your side. Not the legislature, courts, liberals or conservatives. You're the only one arguing that.

I have no idea why you are convoluting a simple issue. My singular point is simple: The Right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a privilege, one which can be infringed by the law, something you seem to acknowledge.

The take away is simple too: If a court or a legislature can deny the right of some of the people to keep and bear Arms, then the entire premise ("shall not be infringed") is bogus.

So according to that logic, the right to vote, free speech, freedom from illegal search and seizure, freedom of religion and every other Constitutional right is a "privilege" as well and we have no rights since government can remove them at any time.

Seriously, you fucking douche bag idiotic moron. Learn what "due process of law" means. My God, you are a stupid, stupid man

Gee, aren't you a tough guy. Face to face you wouldn't have the balls to say that to my face. - Only punks use that sort of language and only when they are hiding behind a keyboard or holding a gun to someone's back.

Once again you don't have a dick, you can't address what I said, Darlene

What you wrote, not what you said. Such minor mistakes are an example of a mind cluttered by self interest and ego, vis a vis a sagacious and panoptic weltanschauung . It doesn't make you stupid, but it does define you as one of the flock. Any pretense is simply fooling yourself and no one else.