What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[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

Once again a member of the fringe feels the need to interject the male organ into a personal attack - more evidence that cowards and those with a gun fetish are fascinated with the male anatomy and homosexuality.

 

[kaz]

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.

Look man, you're the one who said that the fifth amendment saying your rights cannot be restricted without due process of law doesn't mean that they can be restricted with due process of law. Apparently prisons are Unconstitutional. You're a vacuous ass

 

[kaz]

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

Once again a member of the fringe feels the need to interject the male organ into a personal attack - more evidence that cowards and those with a gun fetish are fascinated with the male anatomy and homosexuality.

Well, dickless ho. You keep arguing that the right to own guns can't be removed with due process of law and you say the right think that even when they keep telling you that you're wrong, gun rights can be restricted when you have been convicted of a crime. And you then keep arguing they can't be restricted while you advocate gun laws.

Then you keep ignoring my questions on other Constitutional rights and why they can be removed when you put people in prison. Like PUTTING THEM IN PRISON. Why don't you at least try to sew on a penis and man up to your idiotic contradictory positions that no one says but you and you don't mean

 

[kaz]

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.

Most shooters have a long history of violent crimes. Think how many murders we would prevent just by keeping them in jail where they belong. In fact, that is the reason murder rates have been dropping for decades, they are staying in prison longer. Which of course the left scream hysterically about. OMG, we have too many prisoners! Better than them being on the Street

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Look man, you're the one who said that the fifth amendment saying your rights cannot be restricted without due process of law doesn't mean that they can be restricted with due process of law. Apparently prisons are Unconstitutional. You're a vacuous ass

"..., nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law;...". this is not in dispute, you simply do not understand my argument for the reasons stated above.

 

[kaz]

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

Once again a member of the fringe feels the need to interject the male organ into a personal attack - more evidence that cowards and those with a gun fetish are fascinated with the male anatomy and homosexuality.

I started insulting you because you ignore every point, Darlene. You also continue to insist you know the right's positions when they are telling you that you're wrong, that's not what they think. Pointing out your lack of functioning sexual organs is pretty much what's left.

1) No one thinks that gun rights can't be removed with due process of law but you

2) You completely ignore my questions about what the right to due process means or why your other rights can be removed with due process of law

3) You don't explain why when you say your gun rights can't be removed with due process of law, you support gun control

 

[kaz]

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.

Look man, you're the one who said that the fifth amendment saying your rights cannot be restricted without due process of law doesn't mean that they can be restricted with due process of law. Apparently prisons are Unconstitutional. You're a vacuous ass

"..., nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law;...". this is not in dispute, you simply do not understand my argument for the reasons stated above.

You are disputing it, you're saying your rights can't be removed with due process of law. That while you're a strict gun control advocate. Make that make sense

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Once again a member of the fringe feels the need to interject the male organ into a personal attack - more evidence that cowards and those with a gun fetish are fascinated with the male anatomy and homosexuality.

Well, dickless ho. You keep arguing that the right to own guns can't be removed with due process of law and you say the right think that even when they keep telling you that you're wrong, gun rights can be restricted when you have been convicted of a crime. And you then keep arguing they can't be restricted while you advocate gun laws.

Then you keep ignoring my questions on other Constitutional rights and why they can be removed when you put people in prison. Like PUTTING THEM IN PRISON. Why don't you at least try to sew on a penis and man up to your idiotic contradictory positions that no one says but you and you don't mean

Why the confused syntax, why the anger and why sexual connotations?

It seems your biases prevent you from framing the issue of gun control with mental discernment and common sense. Your narrow vision can't be expanded to consider all parts and elements of gun control as long as you remain fixated on "shall not be infringed" (which is not modified by due process of law) and an odd fascination with the male organ. This sexual obsession is more than odd, and one which should raise the eyebrows of all who read your posts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Once again a member of the fringe feels the need to interject the male organ into a personal attack - more evidence that cowards and those with a gun fetish are fascinated with the male anatomy and homosexuality.

I started insulting you because you ignore every point, Darlene. You also continue to insist you know the right's positions when they are telling you that you're wrong, that's not what they think. Pointing out your lack of functioning sexual organs is pretty much what's left.

1) No one thinks that gun rights can't be removed with due process of law but you

2) You completely ignore my questions about what the right to due process means or why your other rights can be removed with due process of law

3) You don't explain why when you say your gun rights can't be removed with due process of law, you support gun control

I suggest you do your homework:

Due Process of Law: "The law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trail" (Daniel Webster).
If that is too abstract for you I suggest you find a law dictionary and look up the phrase, mine has five citations which may open your mind (unless willful ignorance is your game, which seem highly likely).

 

[kaz]

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

Once again a member of the fringe feels the need to interject the male organ into a personal attack - more evidence that cowards and those with a gun fetish are fascinated with the male anatomy and homosexuality.

Well, dickless ho. You keep arguing that the right to own guns can't be removed with due process of law and you say the right think that even when they keep telling you that you're wrong, gun rights can be restricted when you have been convicted of a crime. And you then keep arguing they can't be restricted while you advocate gun laws.

Then you keep ignoring my questions on other Constitutional rights and why they can be removed when you put people in prison. Like PUTTING THEM IN PRISON. Why don't you at least try to sew on a penis and man up to your idiotic contradictory positions that no one says but you and you don't mean

Why the confused syntax, why the anger and why sexual connotations?

It seems your biases prevent you from framing the issue of gun control with mental discernment and common sense. Your narrow vision can't be expanded to consider all parts and elements of gun control as long as you remain fixated on "shall not be infringed" (which is not modified by due process of law) and an odd fascination with the male organ. This sexual obsession is more than odd, and one which should raise the eyebrows of all who read your posts.

Asked and answered. Your lack of long term memory isn't really fascinating, it's highly correlated with both people with Alzheimer's and liberals.

So when parole officers search parolees without a warrant

Prisoners aren't allowed to have weapons

Prisons edit letters from Prisoners

Prisons search prison cells without warrants

Those are all Unconstitutional?

Then why do you support gun control when the people who support gun rights think the right can be restricted with due process of law and you say it can't?

 

[kaz]

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

Once again a member of the fringe feels the need to interject the male organ into a personal attack - more evidence that cowards and those with a gun fetish are fascinated with the male anatomy and homosexuality.

I started insulting you because you ignore every point, Darlene. You also continue to insist you know the right's positions when they are telling you that you're wrong, that's not what they think. Pointing out your lack of functioning sexual organs is pretty much what's left.

1) No one thinks that gun rights can't be removed with due process of law but you

2) You completely ignore my questions about what the right to due process means or why your other rights can be removed with due process of law

3) You don't explain why when you say your gun rights can't be removed with due process of law, you support gun control

I suggest you do your homework:

Due Process of Law: "The law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trail" (Daniel Webster).
If that is too abstract for you I suggest you find a law dictionary and look up the phrase, mine has five citations which may open your mind (unless willful ignorance is your game, which seem highly likely).

You're the one who loves the courts and they disagree with you, do they need to "do {their} homework" too?

 

[kaz]

Due Process of Law: "The law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trail" (Daniel Webster)

You just agreed with me. If you have been with due process of law convicted of a crime, your rights can be removed. You're the one who'd been arguing they can't be even after a conviction

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Once again a member of the fringe feels the need to interject the male organ into a personal attack - more evidence that cowards and those with a gun fetish are fascinated with the male anatomy and homosexuality.

Well, dickless ho. You keep arguing that the right to own guns can't be removed with due process of law and you say the right think that even when they keep telling you that you're wrong, gun rights can be restricted when you have been convicted of a crime. And you then keep arguing they can't be restricted while you advocate gun laws.

Then you keep ignoring my questions on other Constitutional rights and why they can be removed when you put people in prison. Like PUTTING THEM IN PRISON. Why don't you at least try to sew on a penis and man up to your idiotic contradictory positions that no one says but you and you don't mean

Why the confused syntax, why the anger and why sexual connotations?

It seems your biases prevent you from framing the issue of gun control with mental discernment and common sense. Your narrow vision can't be expanded to consider all parts and elements of gun control as long as you remain fixated on "shall not be infringed" (which is not modified by due process of law) and an odd fascination with the male organ. This sexual obsession is more than odd, and one which should raise the eyebrows of all who read your posts.

Asked and answered. Your lack of long term memory isn't really fascinating, it's highly correlated with both people with Alzheimer's and liberals.

So when parole officers search parolees without a warrant

Prisoners aren't allowed to have weapons

Prisons edit letters from Prisoners

Prisons search prison cells without warrants

Those are all Unconstitutional?

Then why do you support gun control when the people who support gun rights think the right can be restricted with due process of law and you say it can't?

I haven't written anything stating gun rights can't be restricted! I've simply stated

• The 2nd A. states in part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
• That this so called right is really a privilege since the right to bear arms is taken away from some citizens (as you noted)

I have also stated that those who are so opposed to gun control in any form state that the 2nd is sacrosanct within the meaning of can't be infringed.

I've also argued in other posts that I support a requirement that anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun needs to be licensed by the state of their residence, and no gun in a public or private sale can be purchased by anyone not so licensed.

The response by the gun lobby and those who echo them is that a license to own is a restriction (an infringement to the right) and comes within the meaning they apply to "shall not be infringed".

By the way, not all persons on supervised release (bond, OR, probation or parole) are required under the conditions of release to waive their 4th Amendment rights to S&S), the terms and conditions of release vary from state to state and even judicial district to judicial district. Some are Standard, but S&S is not always one of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[

• That this so called right is really a privilege since the right to bear arms is taken away from some citizens (as you noted)

This is a lie.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[

• That this so called right is really a privilege since the right to bear arms is taken away from some citizens (as you noted)

This is a lie.

No, it's an opinion based on evidence. The evidence being the so called Right is infringed by due process of law.

The question then becomes, is a Right absolute or not?

 

[Wry Catcher]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.

Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

The gun lobby has a goal, profit first, last and always. Consequences are irrelevant, anything which impedes profit must be eliminated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[

• That this so called right is really a privilege since the right to bear arms is taken away from some citizens (as you noted)

This is a lie.

No, it's an opinion based on evidence.

No. It's a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.
Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

The gun lobby has a goal, profit first, last and always. Consequences are irrelevant, anything which impedes profit must be eliminated.

More lies.

 

[Contumacious]

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

That is the FASCIST standpoint


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; The deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini

 

[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


.

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

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking questions:


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