Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@farmerman,

Quote:

The way you guys acquire "hand" in this debate subject is by demonizing the other side rather than trying to understand and work together. Nobody wants the rescission of the 2nd Amendment nor do we "Hate merica". You guys just head for the uprelatives and extremes of positions without benefit of logical thinking.

What kind of crap are you peddling? Demonizing the other side? You mean like calling people who own guns "baby killers", that kind of demonizing? There is enough "demonizing" language being thrown around this site to make me laugh in your face.

Quote:

Where does the Constitution state that "The right to acquire and hoard over 200 guns a month fro non dealers shall not be infringed" ?? Or that "Bump stocks and high cap clips for semi's shall neither be infringed""
OOOOOHHHHHH , the USSC said it? and therefore thats the PRESENT definition of the 2nd Amendment eh??

The Constitution doesn't say anything about restrictions against the people, the Constitution is meant to be a limit on the power of the Federal Govt. The Constitution is about individual liberty, not govt control and power.

Quote:

You want bump stocks legal ???
Remember what Scalia said from the bench in Heller, his last gun law opinion.

I've stated several times I thought bumpstocks were stupid, I don't care that they have been banned, remember it was the Obama admin and ATF that approved their sale. Trump banned them.

Quote:

If there's a reason to ban such extremis crap, the USSC has already voted on it and opined upon it. Everything else is just standing and unvoting those congresspersons and senators who are mostly owned by the NRA and the Kochs.

You mention stopping the "demonizing" talk, yet you can't even accept that people don't want to limit guns in anyway. You on the other hand have no problem using such language against those who disagree with you. Pot meet kettle.

Quote:

Ive reflected many times that gun control will come , but it will be generationaly. When it comes, the backup on the opinion will result in a 2nd Amendment that may be eviscerated nd our gun "Rights" will become like Switzerland

Gun control keeps trying to come, but the anti-gun people don't have any real answers. You can't claim no one wants to ban guns because enough proof has been posted here to indicate people do want them banned.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

rabel is right. Over and over and over and the gun loonies stonewall and stonewall and stonewall
over and over.

What measures?

How are we going to implement them to stop the next Cruz if we don't even know what they are?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The way you guys acquire "hand" in this debate subject is by demonizing the other side rather than trying to understand and work together. Nobody wants the rescission of the 2nd Amendment nor do we "Hate merica". You guys just head for the uprelatives and extremes of positions without benefit of logical thinking.

yet here you go, heading for the extremes without the benefit of logical thinking... GERONIMO! Is that how you do it?

farmerman wrote:

Where does the Constitution state that "The right to acquire and hoard over 200 guns a month fro non dealers shall not be infringed" ?? Or that "Bump stocks and high cap clips for semi's shall neither be infringed""
OOOOOHHHHHH , the USSC said it? and therefore thats the PRESENT definition of the 2nd Amendment eh??

It says it here: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

farmerman wrote:

You want bump stocks legal ???
Remember what Scalia said from the bench in Heller, his last gun law opinion.

If there's a reason to ban such extremis crap, the USSC has already voted on it and opined upon it. Everything else is just standing and unvoting those congresspersons and senators who are mostly owned by the NRA and the Kochs.

Ive reflected many times that gun control will come , but it will be generationaly. When it comes, the backup on the opinion will result in a 2nd Amendment that may be eviscerated nd our gun "Rights" will become like Switzerland

I don't want a bump stock. The NRA doesn't want a bump stock. Do you want a bump stock?

I do want 30 rd magazines. Can't have those in NYS. I feel infringed and hopefully the California court thing will roll east.

The 2nd amendment will never be repealed. We will not become Switzerland. Quit jumping to extremes.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

What measures?
How are we going to implement them to stop the next Cruz if we don't even know what they are?

If you keep asking the freedom haters to think and behave rationally, you'll make them start crying.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Of course there were measures that could have been taken so that Cruz didn't have a gun in the first place,

Hold on here. Earlier you were talking about preventing murders. Now you only want to prevent the murders from being carried out with a gun?

Why is it OK for people to be killed if a gun isn't used?

And like McGentrix said, what measures?

Short of banning all guns everywhere, how could he have been prevented from having a gun?

MontereyJack wrote:

but no, the second amendment zealot death-lovers like oralloy say, that would have violated his civil liberties. Thanks, o, for your zealous defense of our civil liberties. Not.

Leftists sure do hate our Constitution and civil liberties.

It's a good thing we have Trump in office to protect us from these leftists.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

One problem here is that rights can have consequences. Scalia among others thzed that rights have to be balanced. Guns are not like some other rights. It's extremely difficult to kill somebody with a newspaper or with a ballot in an election booth, booth. Those rights don't prove deadly. Guns do. I was talking about compulsory gun insurance mainly as athought experiment that had occurred to me, but it does seem like there's something valid there. Guns may be a right, but their use invariavly has consequences. If you wanna play you gotta pay does seem applicable here and fair.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
Of course there were measures that could have been taken so that Cruz didn't have a gun in the first place,

What measures?

Measures that allow leftists to violate our civil liberties for fun while they completely ignore all the murders.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Were talking about murders carried out with guns, duh. Be glad to talk to y0u about other kinds of murders too. Focus.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Gun zealots hate civil rights and life.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

We have never done anything in opposition to either.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Were talking about murders carried out with guns, duh.

Yes. I noticed that you suddenly stopped caring if people are killed, and suddenly started caring only about what method was used to kill them.

Why doesn't it matter when people are murdered by some other means?

MontereyJack wrote:

Be glad to talk to y0u about other kinds of murders too.

Apparently not. You don't seem to care when people are murdered by some other method.

MontereyJack wrote:

Focus.

I am focused. That's why I'm making points that you have no ability to counter.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

One problem here is that rights can have consequences.

Yes, the consequence is that you are not allowed to violate those rights.

MontereyJack wrote:

Scalia among others thzed that rights have to be balanced.

That sounds like an oversimplification of Strict Scrutiny, but OK.

It doesn't allow you to run around violating people's civil liberties for fun.

MontereyJack wrote:

Guns are not like some other rights. It's extremely difficult to kill somebody with a newspaper or with a ballot in an election booth, booth. Those rights don't prove deadly. Guns do.

Irrelevant. You still are not allowed to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

MontereyJack wrote:

I was talking about compulsory gun insurance mainly as athought experiment that had occurred to me, but it does seem like there's something valid there.

Unconstitutional. You can't place impossible requirements on the exercise of a right.

MontereyJack wrote:

Guns may be a right, but their use invariavly has consequences. If you wanna play you gotta pay does seem applicable here and fair.

Sounds like you are trying to justify poll taxes at the voting booth. Already ruled unconstitutional.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

If you weren't such a liar you would admit that you know what measures could have been taken. They have been discussed over and over again on this forum.

The only liar here is you. The only thing discussed on this forum is the freedom-haters' incessant desire to violate our civil liberties for fun.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

McG didn't lie, he asked you an honest question. The fact that you chose to attack instead of answer shows you don't care about the discussion, you only care about attacking. You are a very weak minded person.

Leftists can't have people asking honest questions. That would make people think, and thinking interferes with leftist ideology.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

rabel is right. Over and over and over and the gun loonies stonewall and stonewall and stonewall over and over.

The only thing that we stonewall are leftist efforts to violate our civil liberties for fun. We are right to do so.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

all this shows is how armed "good guys" dont add one squat all of protection against armed" bad guys". Guns still are in the center of it.
Can you follow the bouncing ball?

So if guns are of no use in confronting bad guys, should we disarm the police?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The way you guys acquire "hand" in this debate subject is by demonizing the other side rather than trying to understand and work together.

You are the only ones who act that way. Don't go falsely accusing us of your own bad behavior.

farmerman wrote:

Nobody wants the rescission of the 2nd Amendment

You constantly call for violating it, and you eagerly predict the day when it will be abolished. And so do many other leftists here.

farmerman wrote:

nor do we "Hate merica".

You sure express enough hatred for freedom and civil liberties.

farmerman wrote:

Where does the Constitution state that "The right to acquire and hoard over 200 guns a month for non dealers shall not be infringed" ?? Or that "Bump stocks and high cap clips for semi's shall neither be infringed""

What do those issues have to do with your massive tantrum over not being allowed to ban pistol grips on long guns?

farmerman wrote:

OOOOOHHHHHH , the USSC said it? and therefore thats the PRESENT definition of the 2nd Amendment eh??

So much for your claim to not oppose the Second Amendment.

farmerman wrote:

You want bump stocks legal ???

What does that have to do with your massive tantrum over not being allowed to ban pistol grips on long guns?

farmerman wrote:

Remember what Scalia said from the bench in Heller, his last gun law opinion.

Which one of us actually participated in the Heller case.

Oh that's right. Not you.

farmerman wrote:

If there's a reason to ban such extremis crap, the USSC has already voted on it and opined upon it.

There is nothing extremist about telling you that you are not allowed to ban pistol grips on long guns.

farmerman wrote:

Ive reflected many times that gun control will come, but it will be generationaly. When it comes, the backup on the opinion will result in a 2nd Amendment that may be eviscerated nd our gun "Rights" will become like Switzerland

Yes. Your dream of the day when we no longer have Second Amendment rights.

So much for your claim about not opposing the Second Amendment.

It's not going to happen.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

That's one possibility that some ex-justices have mentiouned.

No one is going to let you abolish the Second Amendment.

MontereyJack wrote:

Or they could ewcosnize that Heller is the Plessy of the 21st century and retry it.

Leftists want to appoint judges who will look the other way and allow leftists to violate our civil liberties for fun.

Voting for Trump will give us judges who protect our civil liberties.

MontereyJack wrote:

Or they could realize that the 2nd is actually about militias

That would allow everyone to have full-auto weapons, grenades and grenade launchers, and anti-tank bazookas.

I'm game.

MontereyJack wrote:

and we don't need anything like a n 18th century militia and just let the common law handle it

You don't have to need it. If you want to go back to enforcing the militia portion of the Constitution, that means you have to let everyone have full-auto weapons, grenades and grenade launchers, and anti-tank bazookas.

MontereyJack wrote:

or they could register guns so we know who has deadly instruments

We've already had registration for some 50 years now.

MontereyJack wrote:

or they cold require gun safes with retina scan locks so kids cant gwet at them and trigger locks.

Only if government pays for the safes. That sounds expensive.

MontereyJack wrote:

An idea that occurred to me is to treat em like cars. Guns are inherently dangerous, so require insurance payable at point of purchase. A million people will die over gun violence over your lifetime, so say six million dollars per policy coverage per incident for severl incidents for eighty years coverage payable in advance at purchase. That oughta cover it.

That's not treating guns like cars. You only need car insurance when driving on public roads. Treating guns like cars would only require insurance on guns that are carried in public.

But you've already made gun insurance impossible, so now it will be unconstitutional to require it for the exercise of a right.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Not the guns fault? Are you suggesting Cruz could have used marshmallows instead??

He could have used bombs. Or driven a heavy truck into a crowd at high speed.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

My argument has always been about rationality in how we define "Shall not be infringed"

You've always been pretty irrational about it, always flying off the handle whenever someone points out that banning pistol grips on a long gun will not pass muster.

But anyway, the standards of Strict Scrutiny are pretty cut and dried. It's already pretty clear what is and is not allowed.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know