Why the liberals are lossing the debate about guns.

[Vandalshandle]

"Where you ever actually in the Military son? Doubtful or you would know the oath that we take. We don't swear an oath to uphold the government, the Republic, the country or the current admin. We take an oath uphold the US Constitution."

As interpreted by you, of course, jt. I assume that you do not feel compelled to necessarily uphold that part of the Contitution whereby the Supreme Court has the final authority of interpreting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is not the final authority on the Constitution.

My 8th grade Civics teacher is going to be very upset when she hears this!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Where you ever actually in the Military son? Doubtful or you would know the oath that we take. We don't swear an oath to uphold the government, the Republic, the country or the current admin. We take an oath uphold the US Constitution."

As interpreted by you, of course, jt. I assume that you do not feel compelled to necessarily uphold that part of the Contitution whereby the Supreme Court has the final authority of interpreting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is not the final authority on the Constitution.

My 8th grade Civics teacher is going to be very upset when she hears this!

Probably, but it will do her some good to learn how the government actually works. Congress has passed laws designed to effectively overturn Supreme Court decisions more than once, you should point that out to her. Then we have the fact that presidents have routinely ignored Supreme Court decisions they don't like for decades.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont see the word "driving" anywhere there. Maybe it's in the margin of your copy?
Driving on public roads requires a state (not federal) license. Anything requiring a license is ipso facto not a right. NY is infringing on constitutional rights, like that's anything new.

You had a point somewhere that I failed to eviscerate?

You obviously don't have any clue what the 9th amendment means.

Since you can constitutionally require licenses, permits, etc., to own guns,

either that means that, by your reasoning, gun ownership is not a right, or,

by every other sane person's reasoning, gun ownership is a right that can have responsibilities, regulations, and limitations attached to it.

You are the one that have no idea what you are talking about. The right to travel, and, by extension, the right to drive, come out of the privileged and immunities clause, not the 9th.

Nice try though.

Okay, so you're acknowledging a right to drive, in disagreement with the other poster, but you're just citing an alternative argument that supports the right to drive;

go argue with the poster who says you don't have a right to drive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I remember multiple predictions right here on this board that there would be a ban on assault weapons, yet the Senate is not even going to introduce a bill that includes such a ban. Tell me again you aren't losing.

You have now told me the Senate is not the relevant measure of who is winning the debate.

1. Who predicted the assault weapons ban would pass?

2. Why is that relevant to who is winning the debate?

There are 3 major components to the gun law debate, currently

a. Banning assault style weapons
b. Restricting magazine capacity
c. Universal background checks

If you're defining the 'debate' you referred to as public opinion, then gun control is winning all three, because all three have majority support in the polls.

If you're defining the 'debate' as being won or lost by what legislation passes, we don't know who's winning that because that process has not played out.

Liar.

The only one that has majority support is the background checks, and that is simply for expanding them, not making them universal for all gun transfers.

Guns

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court is not the final authority on the Constitution.

My 8th grade Civics teacher is going to be very upset when she hears this!

Probably, but it will do her some good to learn how the government actually works. Congress has passed laws designed to effectively overturn Supreme Court decisions more than once, you should point that out to her. Then we have the fact that presidents have routinely ignored Supreme Court decisions they don't like for decades.

The key word above being 'effectively'.

Why don't you list those laws?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Stop using the word reasonable, you aren't fooling anyone. Thre is nothing reasonable about any of your idiocy, if there was you wouldn't have to use the word reasonable to describe it.

He didn't use the word 'reasonable' in the post you quoted above.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They aren't losing the debate.

I remember multiple predictions right here on this board that there would be a ban on assault weapons, yet the Senate is not even going to introduce a bill that includes such a ban. Tell me again you aren't losing.

He is right. They are not losing the debate. They HAVE LOST the debate.

Really. Are there now more Americans opposing an assault weapons ban, opposing universal background checks, opposing magazine capacity limitations?

Why don't you back that up with some evidence.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

Posse Comitatus, moron. The 'government' ordering the military to operate INSIDE the US is un-Constitutional.

Oh, that's right, FUCK the Constitution!!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

Posse Comitatus, moron. The 'government' ordering the military to operate INSIDE the US is un-Constitutional.

Oh, that's right, FUCK the Constitution!!

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

Posse Comitatus, moron. The 'government' ordering the military to operate INSIDE the US is un-Constitutional.

Oh, that's right, FUCK the Constitution!!

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

So it is your position that the SCOTUS can trample the Constitution at will, and the People can do nothing about it?

Is that right?

 

[jtpr312]

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

Posse Comitatus, moron. The 'government' ordering the military to operate INSIDE the US is un-Constitutional.

Oh, that's right, FUCK the Constitution!!

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

The Constitution never gave the 9 whores in DC that power. Not too knowledgable on our Founding, our Founders or the Constitution huh? My advice, try reading the Document, then read the words and correspondences of our Founders to see their intent, then look to Madison vs Marbury, which is when the whores in the court usurped the power Constitutionally given to the people, as represented by the House, and took it for themselves. Never in a million years would the Founders have envisioned a time in this nation where ONE MAN would dictate that 280,000,000 free citizens MUST purchase a service from a private company or be punished by fines, never.

 

[skookerasbil]

The limpwristers on the left have zero clue about how important hunting season is in so many sections of the country.........you are talking tens of millions of people. After Christmas, this is the biggest holiday of the year for these people ( God bless them). Take that away from them, your ass is out of political life.

No worries here.........might end up getting universal background checks but registration will never happen = 100% certainty. Too many hunters also vote......go anywhere near their gun rights and your ass is out of office in a heartbeat. The jackass limpwristed on this board approach this subject on pure emotion and have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You obviously don't have any clue what the 9th amendment means.

Since you can constitutionally require licenses, permits, etc., to own guns,

either that means that, by your reasoning, gun ownership is not a right, or,

by every other sane person's reasoning, gun ownership is a right that can have responsibilities, regulations, and limitations attached to it.

You are the one that have no idea what you are talking about. The right to travel, and, by extension, the right to drive, come out of the privileged and immunities clause, not the 9th.

Nice try though.

Okay, so you're acknowledging a right to drive, in disagreement with the other poster, but you're just citing an alternative argument that supports the right to drive;

go argue with the poster who says you don't have a right to drive.

Let me put it to you this way, I am pointing out that, according to SCOTUS, the right to travel is an outgrowth of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. That makes the right to travel, or drive, inherent in us, not granted by the states, nor can it be denied or restricted by them. The proof of this is the fact that even people on parole can actually travel outside the state in which they are convicted.

They actually got that one right, so why not point it out?

You, on the other hand, want to make up something in order to prove you are smart. Now comes a lesson, smart people look for evidence to back up their position, and change it when they see evidence that they are wrong.

Do you want to be smart, or do you prefer to pretend you are smart?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have now told me the Senate is not the relevant measure of who is winning the debate.

1. Who predicted the assault weapons ban would pass?

2. Why is that relevant to who is winning the debate?

There are 3 major components to the gun law debate, currently

a. Banning assault style weapons
b. Restricting magazine capacity
c. Universal background checks

If you're defining the 'debate' you referred to as public opinion, then gun control is winning all three, because all three have majority support in the polls.

If you're defining the 'debate' as being won or lost by what legislation passes, we don't know who's winning that because that process has not played out.

Liar.

The only one that has majority support is the background checks, and that is simply for expanding them, not making them universal for all gun transfers.

Guns

I don't see anything there that proves you are not lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My 8th grade Civics teacher is going to be very upset when she hears this!

Probably, but it will do her some good to learn how the government actually works. Congress has passed laws designed to effectively overturn Supreme Court decisions more than once, you should point that out to her. Then we have the fact that presidents have routinely ignored Supreme Court decisions they don't like for decades.

The key word above being 'effectively'.

Why don't you list those laws?

When SCOTUS flat out said an income tax was unconstitutional Congress found a way to get one anyway, didn't they?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Stop using the word reasonable, you aren't fooling anyone. Thre is nothing reasonable about any of your idiocy, if there was you wouldn't have to use the word reasonable to describe it.

He didn't use the word 'reasonable' in the post you quoted above.

and you didn't use your brain when you posted, does that change the fact that, if something is reasonable, you don't have to argue that it is before you make your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

Posse Comitatus, moron. The 'government' ordering the military to operate INSIDE the US is un-Constitutional.

Oh, that's right, FUCK the Constitution!!

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

Is there a reason we should the freedom side of the debate should be constrained by the Supreme Court when the fascist side of the debate has publicly declared that they are want to force the court to accept their views?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stop using the word reasonable, you aren't fooling anyone. Thre is nothing reasonable about any of your idiocy, if there was you wouldn't have to use the word reasonable to describe it.

He didn't use the word 'reasonable' in the post you quoted above.

and you didn't use your brain when you posted, does that change the fact that, if something is reasonable, you don't have to argue that it is before you make your point?

I say again, he didn't use the word 'reasonable' in his post. You're hallucinating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Probably, but it will do her some good to learn how the government actually works. Congress has passed laws designed to effectively overturn Supreme Court decisions more than once, you should point that out to her. Then we have the fact that presidents have routinely ignored Supreme Court decisions they don't like for decades.

The key word above being 'effectively'.

Why don't you list those laws?

When SCOTUS flat out said an income tax was unconstitutional Congress found a way to get one anyway, didn't they?

The income tax is constitutional. What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Posse Comitatus, moron. The 'government' ordering the military to operate INSIDE the US is un-Constitutional.

Oh, that's right, FUCK the Constitution!!

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

The Constitution never gave the 9 whores in DC that power. Not too knowledgable on our Founding, our Founders or the Constitution huh? My advice, try reading the Document, then read the words and correspondences of our Founders to see their intent, then look to Madison vs Marbury, which is when the whores in the court usurped the power Constitutionally given to the people, as represented by the House, and took it for themselves. Never in a million years would the Founders have envisioned a time in this nation where ONE MAN would dictate that 280,000,000 free citizens MUST purchase a service from a private company or be punished by fines, never.

So I guess when the whores in the Supreme Court overturned the Chicago handgun ban in 2010, they were using a 'usurped' power that the founders never intended them to have?

lol, so the handgun ban should have went into effect unencumbered by the whores of SCOTUS.

Think before you post.