You want a ban? Amend the Constitution

[Geaux4it]

Awesome! That's a great idea for a law.

Every time we get one of these nutters- Loughner, Holmes, Lanza - we find out within a day that everyone in their lives knew they were crazy.

It's a very dumb idea Joe that should get smoked quicker than a pole in Fat City

-Geaux

NOt really.

Imagine that if Holmes' shrink had called the cops under this law and said, "You know, I think that my patient is about to do something kind of nuts. You'd better make sure he doesn't have any guns."

Jesus, this guy Rodgers posted his insanity on YouTube, and his OWN MOTHER called the cops on him.

The problem with the "Gun Ownership is a right because the Founders didn't know how to write a Militia Amendment Clearly" argument is that when you've established something as a right, there's a reluctance to take guns away from people who just plain shouldn't have them.

I've talked about my neighbor who killed himself four years ago. A few weeks before, he shot out the window of his patio, and when the cops responded, he lied to them that someone had shot in at him. When they used the police skills of Encyclopedia Brown to figure out that was a lie, they STILL Let him keep his gun.

ANd a few weeks later, he shot himself.

All's well that ends well

-Geaux

 

[Indofred]

You have been told over and over. You want to ban firearms, amend the Constitution. All it takes is for you to get a new amendment through both houses of Congress and then passed by 37 States. If as you claim people want the firearm laws to change then how hard can that be?

California has strict laws on the books and yet those laws did not stop a mass shooting. No more laws are needed in regards firearms. Just enforce the laws we have and see to the mentally unstable.

Yes, the second amendment ............hang on, amendment?
It was amended before?
Gosh.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a very dumb idea Joe that should get smoked quicker than a pole in Fat City

-Geaux

NOt really.

Imagine that if Holmes' shrink had called the cops under this law and said, "You know, I think that my patient is about to do something kind of nuts. You'd better make sure he doesn't have any guns."

Jesus, this guy Rodgers posted his insanity on YouTube, and his OWN MOTHER called the cops on him.

The problem with the "Gun Ownership is a right because the Founders didn't know how to write a Militia Amendment Clearly" argument is that when you've established something as a right, there's a reluctance to take guns away from people who just plain shouldn't have them.

I've talked about my neighbor who killed himself four years ago. A few weeks before, he shot out the window of his patio, and when the cops responded, he lied to them that someone had shot in at him. When they used the police skills of Encyclopedia Brown to figure out that was a lie, they STILL Let him keep his gun.

ANd a few weeks later, he shot himself.

All's well that ends well

-Geaux

No, not really. Wasn't good for his wife, who was left destitute after that.

Could have been worse. That gun he fired through his patio window could have hit someone.

 

[Geaux4it]

NOt really.

Imagine that if Holmes' shrink had called the cops under this law and said, "You know, I think that my patient is about to do something kind of nuts. You'd better make sure he doesn't have any guns."

Jesus, this guy Rodgers posted his insanity on YouTube, and his OWN MOTHER called the cops on him.

The problem with the "Gun Ownership is a right because the Founders didn't know how to write a Militia Amendment Clearly" argument is that when you've established something as a right, there's a reluctance to take guns away from people who just plain shouldn't have them.

I've talked about my neighbor who killed himself four years ago. A few weeks before, he shot out the window of his patio, and when the cops responded, he lied to them that someone had shot in at him. When they used the police skills of Encyclopedia Brown to figure out that was a lie, they STILL Let him keep his gun.

ANd a few weeks later, he shot himself.

All's well that ends well

-Geaux

No, not really. Wasn't good for his wife, who was left destitute after that.

Could have been worse. That gun he fired through his patio window could have hit someone.

Sounds like the stupid wife has the unintended consequence of marrying a suicidal moron.

She owns it, not me

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

All's well that ends well

-Geaux

No, not really. Wasn't good for his wife, who was left destitute after that.

Could have been worse. That gun he fired through his patio window could have hit someone.

Sounds like the stupid wife has the unintended consequence of marrying a suicidal moron.

She owns it, not me

-Geaux

NO wonder everyone laughed at Bush when he called himself a "compassionate conservative".

I think the main reason why i stopped being a republican is that I simply couldn't manage the requisite amount of heartlessness.

 

[Wildman]

No one wants to ban firearms. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Really?

Google "Operation Chokepoint" then get back to us.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Justice Department’s investigation into banks and payment processing firms acting as middlemen for potentially illegal firearms transactions was conducted in accordance with comprehensive due process and appropriate government oversight:

In a November 2013 internal memo, a Justice Department official said the agency had opened civil investigations into 10 banks and payment processors, as well as criminal investigations of one bank and four payment-processing firms.

Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, deputy assistant attorney general, described the government’s so-called “Operation Choke Point” probe a success, saying banks are stepping up scrutiny of their relationships with firms that process payments.

“In several cases, after receiving a subpoena, banks and processors have self-disclosed potentially problematic relationships and have informed us that they have taken corrective action,” she wrote in the internal memo.

?Operation Choke Point? Details Disclosed in Government Memos - Law Blog - WSJ

The notion that this investigation is designed to ‘ban all guns’ is as ignorant and wrong as the errant notion that gun regulations can be enacted only as a result of an ‘amendment’ to the Constitution.

A conservative lie debunked in one post, just like all the other lies contrived and propagated by the partisan right.

if "Choke Point" isn't good enough, try this one: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

 

[Wildman]

No one wants to ban firearms. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Really?

Google "Operation Chokepoint" then get back to us.

That does not prove that anyone wants to ban guns. Want to try again?

yaa.., i will:
How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

 

[DiamondDave]

You have been told over and over. You want to ban firearms, amend the Constitution. All it takes is for you to get a new amendment through both houses of Congress and then passed by 37 States. If as you claim people want the firearm laws to change then how hard can that be?

No, all you need to do is get non-crazy people on the Supreme Court to realize the Second Amendment was about Militias, and not gun ownership.

You should also indict the NRA under the RICO statues. Kind of how we held Operation Rescue to account for all these nuts who bombed abortion clinics, hold the NRA responsible for their actions.

California has strict laws on the books and yet those laws did not stop a mass shooting. No more laws are needed in regards firearms. Just enforce the laws we have and see to the mentally unstable.

It's kind of hard to 'enforce the laws" when you have the NRA Keeping all the loopholes open.

You do have a point about the police not doing their job. Rodger's mother warned the cops that he had gone off the deep end, and they did nothing about it.

Punctuation and choice of words meant a lot to the founding fathers.. the 2nd was not 'about the militias'

But nice try, you left wing fanatic

 

[Wildman]

You have been told over and over. You want to ban firearms, amend the Constitution. All it takes is for you to get a new amendment through both houses of Congress and then passed by 37 States. If as you claim people want the firearm laws to change then how hard can that be?

No, all you need to do is get non-crazy people on the Supreme Court to realize the Second Amendment was about Militias, and not gun ownership.

You should also indict the NRA under the RICO statues. Kind of how we held Operation Rescue to account for all these nuts who bombed abortion clinics, hold the NRA responsible for their actions.

California has strict laws on the books and yet those laws did not stop a mass shooting. No more laws are needed in regards firearms. Just enforce the laws we have and see to the mentally unstable.

It's kind of hard to 'enforce the laws" when you have the NRA Keeping all the loopholes open.

You do have a point about the police not doing their job. Rodger's mother warned the cops that he had gone off the deep end, and they did nothing about it.

"...the Second Amendment was about Militias, and not gun ownership." <-----------<<<< this is one of the biggest most egregious lies you libertard assholes spew

do you retards know what this means, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ??

if not here is a starting point for your to research in your spare time. O FUCKING K ??

http://www.google.com/search?q="the...rms+shall+not+be+infringed"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

[JoeB131]

Punctuation and choice of words meant a lot to the founding fathers.. the 2nd was not 'about the militias'

But nice try, you left wing fanatic

They thought "President' was spelled with an F.

Um, no, not really.

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

Read more: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - Michael Waldman - POLITICO Magazine

 

[JoeB131]

MOre from the same article... It totally debunks the whole myth that the Founders were about protecting gun rights.

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA&#8217;s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a &#8220;right of revolution,&#8221; of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called &#8220;The War Between the States.&#8221;

At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds&#8212;much of them from the NRA&#8212;flowed freely. An essay contest, grants to write book reviews, the creation of &#8220;Academics for the Second Amendment,&#8221; all followed. In 2003, the NRA Foundation provided $1 million to endow the Patrick Henry professorship in constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School.

This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view&#8212;shared by courts and historians&#8212;was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.

If one delves into the claims these scholars were making, a startling number of them crumble. Historian Jack Rakove, whose Pulitzer-Prize winning book Original Meanings explored the founders&#8217; myriad views, notes, &#8220;It is one thing to ransack the sources for a set of useful quotations, another to weigh their interpretive authority. &#8230; There are, in fact, only a handful of sources from the period of constitutional formation that bear directly on the questions that lie at the heart of our current controversies about the regulation of privately owned firearms. If Americans has indeed been concerned with the impact of the Constitution on this right &#8230; the proponents of individual right theory would not have to recycle the same handful of references &#8230; or to rip promising snippets of quotations from the texts and speeches in which they are embedded.&#8221;

Read more: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - Michael Waldman - POLITICO Magazine

 

[candycorn]

No one wants to ban firearms. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

It's the debate tactic of choice of gun nuts...mischaracterize the position of your opponent to make them seem unreasonable.