What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[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?

The liberal's entire premise is that if a lawbreaker violates a law and escapes punishment, then the law is null and void for everyone. This is one of the crazier stretches we've seen in their quest to get away from the Rule of Law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

The liberal's entire premise is that if a lawbreaker violates a law and escapes punishment, then the law is null and void for everyone. This is one of the crazier stretches we've seen in their quest to get away from the Rule of Law.

You sir are a lunatic, as well as dishonest. Do not take a quote out of context - especially when you cannot understand its essence in total - and then build a straw man, add an ad hominem and then claim victory.

 

[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?

The liberal's entire premise is that if a lawbreaker violates a law and escapes punishment, then the law is null and void for everyone. This is one of the crazier stretches we've seen in their quest to get away from the Rule of Law.

You sir are a lunatic, as well as dishonest. Do not take a quote out of context - especially when you cannot understand its essence in total - and then build a straw man, add an ad hominem and then claim victory.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said. But I hate it anyway. So I'll call you names, smear you, and lie about what you said, in hopes that maybe I can fool someone somewhere into thinking I had a valid point.

Back to the subject:
The liberal's ultimate goal is to make people believe laws are invalid. Either that they simply don't mean what they say, or that they are somehow vague, or (most hilariously) that a court decision can override a constitutional provision. In doing so, they have no choice but to ignore the proof and evidence that law-abiding people keep bringing up, and destroying those who support it.

Examples of these destructive tactics can be found in liberal posts throughout this thread, and in many others.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Empowering individuals to defend their life, liberty, and property

That must give comfort to the parents of those five and six year old children slaughtered at S.H. Elem.

In 1999 (to give one example) a guy got a gun and went out in Los Angeles to "kill some Jews", in his words. He drove up to three different Jewish businesses, but backed away and left when he saw they had armed guards. He then drove to the local Jewish Community Center and watched it for a while, finally deciding that no one there was armed. Whereupon he got out of his car, went in, and started shooting, killing and injuring a number of children and adults. He then went to a post office (where guns were forbidden for law-abiding people) and killed a postal worker.

The parents of the murdered kids in the JCC were certainly not "comforted", nor was the family of the postal worker, by the idea that people have the right to keep and bear arms. But the parents and acquaintences of the people at the other Jewish businesses were VERY comforted, and in fact owe their loved ones' lives to the people who had guns inside the businesses when the murderous bigot showed up.

How many lives were saved at those businesses? And, have the parents at the JCC asked the staff there, why THEY had no armed guards? If they had had them, it's likely that no kids would have been killed, and even that no shots would have been fired in the first place.

The fault for those murdered kids lies, obviously, with the bigot who pulled the trigger. But if the staff of the JCC had done the obvious and sensible thing, having armed guard on the premises like the other places did (or simply permitting law-abiding adults to carry at the school), how many children would be alive today, who are now dead?

It seems that no liberal wants to address this question, preferring to pretend it had never been said.

Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

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.

Talk about a loon. You've engaged in endless discussions with gun right supporters who you keep telling think that the second amendment rights can't be restricted WITH due process of law, and we keep telling you we don't, they can be restricted with due process of law.

And you keep saying yes you do, you think criminals can legally buy guns. And we keep telling you no we don't we just don't want you to restrict our rights. Yet you cling to your lie speaking for us like drool on a baby, no matter how many times we tell you you're wrong about what we think.

Then at the same time you argue that any right that can be restricted with due process of law isn't a right, it's a privilege. So, according to you, if government can take away your rights by proving you committed a crime in a court of law, they can take them away for any reason because it's a privilege, not a right. You aren't making it up, are you? You really that arrogant and stupid, aren't you? The second certainly undercutting your right to be the first ...

 

[kaz]

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.

You're mixing your corporate talking points with your gun talking points again ...

 

[Little-Acorn]

(more wishful thinking)

You've engaged in endless discussions with gun right supporters who you keep telling think that the second amendment rights can't be restricted WITH due process of law, and we keep telling you we don't, they can be restricted with due process of law.

What you mean "we", Kimosabe?

I have made numerous arguments that the RKBA can't be restricted by law. and no one has yet refuted them.

As I've said, the only way that right can be restricted or taken away, is by either (a) Jury nullification, or (b) a Constitutional amendment.

It was written in a definite, no-holds-barred style, permitting NO exceptions.

 

[kaz]

(more wishful thinking)

You've engaged in endless discussions with gun right supporters who you keep telling think that the second amendment rights can't be restricted WITH due process of law, and we keep telling you we don't, they can be restricted with due process of law.

What you mean "we", Kimosabe?

I have made numerous arguments that the RKBA can't be restricted by law. and no one has yet refuted them.

As I've said, the only way that right can be restricted or taken away, is by either (a) Jury nullification, or (b) a Constitutional amendment.

It was written in a definite, no-holds-barred style, permitting NO exceptions.

I'm referring to the posters who have agreed and thanked my posts many times. I do recall you are one with Wry who doesn't grasp the fifth amendment, so obviously I didn't mean you. "We" didn't mean "everyone."

As for no one has refuted your arguments, you are full of shit. That you don't agree with an argument doesn't mean it wasn't presented. The fifth amendment is very clear. Read up on it and get back to me when you grasp it

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'm referring to the posters who have agreed and thanked my posts many times. I do recall you are one with Wry who doesn't grasp the fifth amendment, so obviously I didn't mean you.

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't grasp the 5th amendment.

You're probably referring to the part that says, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", correct?

Does this apply to all amendments?

If so, then why did the Framers bother to put language into the 4th amendment saying that no unreasonable searches and seizures are permitted, and reasonable ones are only if the cops get a warrant? That part of the 5th would have covered it, right? Except the Framers knew it didn't, so that put in all that "extra" language.

Can Congress eliminate the right to trial by jury described in the 6th and 7th, merely by passing a law saying "We hereby forbid trials by jury"? Do you honestly think the Framers wanted to leave that possibility open?

Ditto for excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel or unusual punishments described in the 8th? Can Congress permit them simply by passing a law, regardless of what the 8th amendment says?

Can Congress reinstate slavery nationwide, simply by passing a law saying it's OK now? I don't think anyone intended that. Yet with your novel interpretation of the 5th, it sounds like they can.

The examples of why your interpretation is wrong, abound. These are just a few of the more obvious ones.

Sorry, Kaz. The 2nd amendment is as absolute and unyielding, as I have held that it is. Because it says so. So are the 6th, 7th, and 8th - Congress CANNOT undermine them simply by passing a law as you seem to believe. Nor can they pass exceptions to the 2nd's absolute ban, whether "reasonable" or otherwise.

The Framers carefully wrote them that way. Arguments that they didn't really mean it, are without basis.

People have had time to change the 2nd (and the others) for more than 200 years, via constitutional amendment. They have ALWAYS chosen not to do so. Every time.

The 2nd amendment flatly bans government from having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun. And the 5th amendment has no effect whatever on that ban, just as it has none on the other amendments.

 

[kaz]

I'm referring to the posters who have agreed and thanked my posts many times. I do recall you are one with Wry who doesn't grasp the fifth amendment, so obviously I didn't mean you.

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't grasp the 5th amendment.

You're probably referring to the part that says, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", correct?

Does this apply to all amendments?

If so, then why did the Framers bother to put language into the 4th amendment saying that no unreasonable searches and seizures are permitted, and reasonable ones are only if the cops get a warrant? That part of the 5th would have covered it, right? Except the Framers knew it didn't, so that put in all that "extra" language.

Can Congress eliminate the right to trial by jury described in the 6th and 7th, merely by passing a law saying "We hereby forbid trials by jury"? Do you honestly think the Framers wanted to leave that possibility open?

Ditto for excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel or unusual punishments described in the 8th? Can Congress permit them simply by passing a law, regardless of what the 8th amendment says?

Can Congress reinstate slavery nationwide, simply by passing a law saying it's OK now? I don't think anyone intended that. Yet with your novel interpretation of the 5th, it sounds like they can.

The examples of why your interpretation is wrong, abound. These are just a few of the more obvious ones.

Sorry, Kaz. The 2nd amendment is as absolute and unyielding, as I have held that it is. Because it says so. So are the 6th, 7th, and 8th - Congress CANNOT undermine them simply by passing a law as you seem to believe. Nor can they pass exceptions to the 2nd's absolute ban, whether "reasonable" or otherwise.

The Framers carefully wrote them that way. Arguments that they didn't really mean it, are without basis.

People have had time to change the 2nd (and the others) for more than 200 years, via constitutional amendment. They have ALWAYS chosen not to do so. Every time.

The 2nd amendment flatly bans government from having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun. And the 5th amendment has no effect whatever on that ban, just as it has none on the other amendments.

I understand your confusion now. You don't know what due process means. It's a judicial process, not a legislative one. No, congress can't give you "due process," passing a law isn't due process.

Due process is that with your rights respected (no illegal search, trial by jury ...) they convict you of a crime. At that point they can remove your rights, things like putting you in jail

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'm referring to the posters who have agreed and thanked my posts many times. I do recall you are one with Wry who doesn't grasp the fifth amendment, so obviously I didn't mean you.

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't grasp the 5th amendment.

You're probably referring to the part that says, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", correct?

Does this apply to all amendments?

If so, then why did the Framers bother to put language into the 4th amendment saying that no unreasonable searches and seizures are permitted, and reasonable ones are only if the cops get a warrant? That part of the 5th would have covered it, right? Except the Framers knew it didn't, so that put in all that "extra" language.

Can Congress eliminate the right to trial by jury described in the 6th and 7th, merely by passing a law saying "We hereby forbid trials by jury"? Do you honestly think the Framers wanted to leave that possibility open?

Ditto for excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel or unusual punishments described in the 8th? Can Congress permit them simply by passing a law, regardless of what the 8th amendment says?

Can Congress reinstate slavery nationwide, simply by passing a law saying it's OK now? I don't think anyone intended that. Yet with your novel interpretation of the 5th, it sounds like they can.

The examples of why your interpretation is wrong, abound. These are just a few of the more obvious ones.

Sorry, Kaz. The 2nd amendment is as absolute and unyielding, as I have held that it is. Because it says so. So are the 6th, 7th, and 8th - Congress CANNOT undermine them simply by passing a law as you seem to believe. Nor can they pass exceptions to the 2nd's absolute ban, whether "reasonable" or otherwise.

The Framers carefully wrote them that way. Arguments that they didn't really mean it, are without basis.

People have had time to change the 2nd (and the others) for more than 200 years, via constitutional amendment. They have ALWAYS chosen not to do so. Every time.

The 2nd amendment flatly bans government from having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun. And the 5th amendment has no effect whatever on that ban, just as it has none on the other amendments.

I understand your confusion now. You don't know what due process means. It's a judicial process, not a legislative one. No, congress can't give you "due process," passing a law isn't due process.

Due process is that with your rights respected (no illegal search, trial by jury ...) they convict you of a crime. At that point they can remove your rights, things like putting you in jail

I'm not the one who's confused.

Due process is both a legislative and judicial process. The people ratify a Constitution that cannot be altered (except by processes defined in that Constitution), the legislature then makes laws that conform to that Constitution, and the Courts decide your case according to what the Constitution and those laws (in that order) say. When those things happen as described, you have received "due process".

But if the legislature makes laws that violate what the Constitution says, then if the courts try you according to what those unconstitutional laws say instead of what the Constitution says, you are not getting due process.

Due process depends as much on what the Legislature does, as what the Courts do. Either body is capable of illegally depriving you of due process. In fact, the courts have long (correctly) said that any law repugnant to the Constitution, is null and void. And that's true even if a court later says such a law is OK.

And the classic example of such a law is, of course, a legislature making a law saying some "reasonable restrictions" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, are OK, and some court not striking it down, while the Constitution says flatly that the right shall not be infringed.

The 2nd amendment flatly bans government from having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun. And the 5th amendment has no effect whatever on that ban, just as it has none on the other amendments. Trying to define "due process" away from the legislature and pretending it only applies to courts, is simply mistaken.

 

[kaz]

I'm referring to the posters who have agreed and thanked my posts many times. I do recall you are one with Wry who doesn't grasp the fifth amendment, so obviously I didn't mean you.

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't grasp the 5th amendment.

You're probably referring to the part that says, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", correct?

Does this apply to all amendments?

If so, then why did the Framers bother to put language into the 4th amendment saying that no unreasonable searches and seizures are permitted, and reasonable ones are only if the cops get a warrant? That part of the 5th would have covered it, right? Except the Framers knew it didn't, so that put in all that "extra" language.

Can Congress eliminate the right to trial by jury described in the 6th and 7th, merely by passing a law saying "We hereby forbid trials by jury"? Do you honestly think the Framers wanted to leave that possibility open?

Ditto for excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel or unusual punishments described in the 8th? Can Congress permit them simply by passing a law, regardless of what the 8th amendment says?

Can Congress reinstate slavery nationwide, simply by passing a law saying it's OK now? I don't think anyone intended that. Yet with your novel interpretation of the 5th, it sounds like they can.

The examples of why your interpretation is wrong, abound. These are just a few of the more obvious ones.

Sorry, Kaz. The 2nd amendment is as absolute and unyielding, as I have held that it is. Because it says so. So are the 6th, 7th, and 8th - Congress CANNOT undermine them simply by passing a law as you seem to believe. Nor can they pass exceptions to the 2nd's absolute ban, whether "reasonable" or otherwise.

The Framers carefully wrote them that way. Arguments that they didn't really mean it, are without basis.

People have had time to change the 2nd (and the others) for more than 200 years, via constitutional amendment. They have ALWAYS chosen not to do so. Every time.

The 2nd amendment flatly bans government from having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun. And the 5th amendment has no effect whatever on that ban, just as it has none on the other amendments.

I understand your confusion now. You don't know what due process means. It's a judicial process, not a legislative one. No, congress can't give you "due process," passing a law isn't due process.

Due process is that with your rights respected (no illegal search, trial by jury ...) they convict you of a crime. At that point they can remove your rights, things like putting you in jail

I'm not the one who's confused.

Due process is both a legislative and judicial process. The people ratify a Constitution that cannot be altered (except by processes defined in that Constitution), the legislature then makes laws that conform to that Constitution, and the Courts decide your case according to what the Constitution and those laws (in that order) say. When those things happen as described, you have received "due process".

But if the legislature makes laws that violate what the Constitution says, then if the courts try you according to what those unconstitutional laws say instead of what the Constitution says, you are not getting due process.

Due process depends as much on what the Legislature does, as what the Courts do. Either body is capable of illegally depriving you of due process. In fact, the courts have long (correctly) said that any law repugnant to the Constitution, is null and void. And that's true even if a court later says such a law is OK.

And the classic example of such a law is, of course, a legislature making a law saying some "reasonable restrictions" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, are OK, and some court not striking it down, while the Constitution says flatly that the right shall not be infringed.

The 2nd amendment flatly bans government from having ANY say in who can or can't own and carry a gun. And the 5th amendment has no effect whatever on that ban, just as it has none on the other amendments. Trying to define "due process" away from the legislature and pretending it only applies to courts, is simply mistaken.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're taking the words "due process" as English words and inferring a meaning. It's actually a specific judicial phrase which means your rights are respected through the judicial process. You can't make up your own definition.

The fifth says that if you are convicted of a crime with "due process" where your rights (no illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, ...) are respected, then and only then can your other rights be violated. It's unambiguous. That's what it says, you don't get to make up your own definitions

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

 

[Little-Acorn]

The fifth says that if you are convicted of a crime with "due process" where your rights (no illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, ...) are respected,

You left one out: The right to keep and bear arms. As unconditionally guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, just as those others are unconditionally guaranteed, and can't be arbitrarily removed or restricted by legislation.

then and only then can your other rights be violated.

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I seriously doubt you are free to yell "bomb" on any street corner of any major US city without consequences.

I posed the question hoping you would pose the "fire in a theater" idiocy. Any first year law student learns that there is no law against yelling fire in a theater. Instead their is liability for the CONSEQUENCE of your actions. Just as if you drive your car into people, you are liable for their injury, if your words create a panic then you can be held civilly and criminally responsible. No one has suppressed your right to speak, but you are responsible for your act.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

I knew you were ignorant, but even for you this is some astounding stupidity.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Our gun policy should be just what the 2nd amendment spells out: Any law-abiding adult should be allowed to own and carry a gun (unless a jury permits law enforcement to take their gun away).

It's the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to. Most people still wouldn't bother, of course, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office (or French concert hall or California office party of Belgian airport), would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

 

[Timmy]

Our gun policy should be just what the 2nd amendment spells out: Any law-abiding adult should be allowed to own and carry a gun (unless a jury permits law enforcement to take their gun away).

It's the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to. Most people still wouldn't bother, of course, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office (or French concert hall or California office party of Belgian airport), would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Man you keep reading more and more into the 2nd .

Do u think guns should be avialble out of vending machines ? Cause that's what u are advocating .

 

[Rustic]

Timmy needs to quit fucking falling down the well... Lol

 

[X. Li]

Since I'm from China, I know what happens with one version of "gun laws", which is essentially "get or sell a gun and don't be surprised by a death sentence".
Two observations:
1. It results in very low rate of gun violence in an extremely populous country.
2. People start to kill with knives, ropes, fists, cooking pans, and "big red bricks" -- we can do a lot with those things, I'm serious...

 

[kaz]

The fifth says that if you are convicted of a crime with "due process" where your rights (no illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, ...) are respected,

You left one out: The right to keep and bear arms. As unconditionally guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, just as those others are unconditionally guaranteed, and can't be arbitrarily removed or restricted by legislation.

then and only then can your other rights be violated.

Exactly. The other rights... but not the ones that are specifically and unconditionally safeguarded by the Constitution, that you so listed. Such as trial by jury, guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure... and the right to keep and bear arms. NONE of those can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Try all you want to find excuses and loopholes to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Or to cooperate in the slightest with liberals who are doing the same to undermine the Constitution. You will be wrong, every time, without exception... unless you are on a jury.

Your'e a good guy, Acorn. We've posted frequently before. But on this you're full of shit and you don't want to understand it. So I've got nothing for you. You don't know what you're talking about. The founding fathers never wrote such a thing, no branch of government agrees with you and no political group agrees with you including libertarians. You're in your own world. Worse, you're in a world with just you and Wry Catcher, the only ones I know arguing that.

But if you want to keep wasting your time arguing convicted felons should have the right to buy guns, you go right ahead. Of all the things we'd want to change in our fucked up political system, I sure as hell don't know why that's the one you want