31
   

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 06:26 pm
@RexRed,
I thought you didn't believe there was such a thing called "responsible, sane gun owners".
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 09:06 pm
@mysteryman,
No, this is where you people on the right all jump to conclusions. Can't someone be for gun regulation? That does not automatically mean they want or would prefer all guns taken away...

I don't believe in guns for myself, I am a pacifist. I do believe others have the right to own guns. I just don't think crazies should be allowed to own guns.
So I believe in background check for ALL gun sales.

How does that in your mind turn into meaning there are no responsible sane gun owners? Our military and police are full of responsible, proud and sane gun owners.

I just personally want no part of guns or weapons of any sort, other than words, which can be just as powerful when used in the right context.

Even some threatening words and hate speech are governed by laws, as guns most certainly should also be.

Where did I say there were no responsible or sane gun owners? Can you show me a quote?

The quote says that "sane responsible gun owners are NOT the problem", can't you read?
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 02:19 pm
@RexRed,
The problem is this Rex. None of the guns laws or restrictions that have been put forth would do anything to prevent the types of shootings that have taken place. It would only have put an extra burden on those of us who want to purchase or even give them to our children. That isn't a fair idea to prevent the crazies to from getting guns. Bullet restrictions on mags didn't make any sense either. The restrictions placed on the mag's didn't leave any room for what the guns were made to hold. & rounds in NY? Really?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Aug, 2013 12:16 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
No, this is where you people on the right all jump to conclusions. Can't someone be for gun regulation?
That does not automatically mean they want or would prefer all guns taken away...

I don't believe in guns for myself, I am a pacifist. I do believe others have the right to own guns.
I just don't think crazies should be allowed to own guns.
So I believe in background check for ALL gun sales.
I take it from that
that u reject the Constitutional requirement of "equal protection of the laws"; correct, Rex ?
Otherwise, what is the reason for "background check" except discrimination
concerning WHO shall be legally able to defend his life from predatory violence??

How 'd u feel about it if "background check" singled out homosexuals
for discrimination against the right to bear arms ??
Please explain.





David
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Aug, 2013 09:45 am
We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics.

BUT...We are encouraged TO judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics!
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Aug, 2013 10:20 am
@McGentrix,
I'm wondering if gun owners in the US will ever be given protected class status. After all we seem to be a shrinking minority in the US according to those in change and those who are anti-gun.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Aug, 2013 10:21 am
@McGentrix,
I see, so you are for not only arming crazies who have show a propensity for violence but also for arming terrorists...

One time I was singing and playing guitar at a bar and the bartender shut off a certain patron who was getting loud and obnoxious. So the patron went out to get his shotgun from the trunk of his car.

Luckily his wife happened to be there, she went outside and talked him down...

This same man has been hooked on so many prescription pills over the years and has a propensity for a hair trigger temper. I see no reason why given the fact that he almost shot up a bar once that he deserves to be able to own guns...

What about my first amendment right to pursue my own life in happiness!!

When you fairly and honestly address my first amendment right I will address your second amendment right. Though I think I have fairly and honestly done so already but you people are too retarded to understand.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 12:15 am
Doe made famous for living in cemetery shot dead
http://www.wsfa.com/story/23052483/doe-made-famous-for-living-in-cemetery-shot-and-killed

Pathetic.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 02:56 am
@RexRed,
Quote:
What about my first amendment right to pursue my own life in happiness!!

When you fairly and honestly address my first amendment right I will address your second amendment right. Though I think I have fairly and honestly done so already but you people are too retarded to understand.


Do you even know what the first amendment says?

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


Where is your
Quote:
first amendment right to pursue my own life in happiness
?
I don't see that listed anywhere.
I think you need to at least read the Constitution sometime and get familiar with it.

RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 04:39 pm
@mysteryman,
Just for you MM... 3 people dead! That's DEAD! What about their FIRST amendment right to happiness? Please answer that question MM!

Ross Township Shooting: Men Who Subdued Pennsylvania Gunman Describe Chaotic Scene
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/ross-township-shooting_n_3718611.html

They knew he was violent and had lethal weapons, yet no one stopped him?
Does a crazy gunman's right to kill people at will trump the public's right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness????!

All so you MM can fantasize about your UNPATRIOTIC war with the publicly elected, democratically controlled government? All so you can exercise your racist hatred for a just and patriotic black man?

A person's right to happiness does not include murder...
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 04:57 pm
@RexRed,
Here is a listing of the 1st Amendment for Rex, who doesn't seem to know what it says or what it means. No where in the 1st Amendment does it mention a right to happiness or a right to life.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

So my 2nd Amendment right does not in any way prevent you from using your 1st Amendment rights. Only the govt can prevent you from using the 1st Amendment.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 05:21 pm
@RexRed,
Excuse me, I mean the Declaration Of Independence that preceded ratification of the first amendment by 15 years...

The Declaration Of Independence, the document and foundation of our government that all other documents and amendments rest a upon...

You know, the document that frees us from "tyranny"... Tyranny like despot kings, mad men and cultish, racist, reckless, local or foreign, militias and gangs threatening average citizens by roving around the countryside with with loaded guns...

Domestic tranquility and such.

And if no laws are to regulate guns then why did they outlaw duels? It is even illegal to sword fight...

Wikipedia
Several states have very high-level bans laid against duelling, with stiff penalties for violation. Several United States state constitutions ban the practice, the most common penalty being disenfranchisement or disqualification from all offices.
State constitutions prohibiting dueling specifically are those of Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia and the Session law of Texas.
The Constitution of Kentucky, adopted in 1891, prohibits anyone from holding any state office who has ever participated in a duel.[54] The gubernatorial oath of office contains a line that affirms at the time of inauguration that the incoming governor of Kentucky has never participated in a duel.[55]
State and territorial laws prohibiting duelling[edit source | editbeta]
Twenty states, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have some statute(s) (including constitutional provisions) specifically prohibiting duelling. The remaining 30 states either have no such statute or constitutional provision, or limit their duelling prohibition to members of their state national guard. This does not necessarily mean, however, that duelling is legal in any state, as assault and murder laws can apply. Where dueling is specifically prohibited, these statutes are often accompanied by further statutes against leaving the jurisdiction in order to participate in a duel, and against public denunciation of the other party for not fighting.
States which specifically prohibit members of the state national guard from duelling are Arizona, Arkansas,[56] Connecticut,[57] Georgia,[58] Iowa,[59] Kansas,[60] Missouri,[61] Hawaii,[62] Ohio,[63] Oregon,[64] Pennsylvania,[65] Washington[66] and New York.[67]
States and territories which have statutory prohibitions on duelling for all citizens are Colorado,[68] District of Columbia,[69] Idaho,[70] Kentucky,[71] Massachusetts,[72] Michigan,[73] Mississippi,[74] Nevada,[75] New Mexico,[76] New York,[77] North Dakota,[78] Oklahoma,[79] Puerto Rico,[80] Rhode Island[81] and Utah.[82] California previously prohibited duelling, but this was repealed in 1994.[83]
Virginia passed the Anti-Dueling Act in 1810, creating civil and criminal penalties for the most usual causes of duelling, rather than for the act itself. It is still on the books. Virginia Code §8.01-45 creates a Civil Action for insulting words. Virginia Code §18.2-416 makes it a crime to use abusive language to another under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Virginia Code §18.2-417 makes certain slander and libel a crime.[84]

Comment:
Notice most of these dueling laws are in "red states"... The last law mentioned outlawing certain kinds of "free speech"... These laws could only have been a enacted on the basis of the Declaration Of Independence and not the US Constitution because the Declaration Of Independence trumps the Constitution in many ways...

Just as the first amendment trumps the second amendment and so on...

The second amendment was ratified to protect slavery... Today it is a symbol of southern racism... (cynical)
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 06:53 pm
@RexRed,
What the hell are you talking about?

Quote:
All so you MM can fantasize about your UNPATRIOTIC war with the publicly elected, democratically controlled government? All so you can exercise your racist hatred for a just and patriotic black man?



what "war" are you talking about?
I'm not at war with anyone.

And racist hatred?
You have me confused with yourself.
I have never expressed "racist hatred" to anyone, and I defy you to find even one instance where I have.

BTW, the first amendment to the Constitution does not mention happiness, that word isn't even in the first amendment.


0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 06:55 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
The second amendment was ratified to protect slavery... Today it is a symbol of southern racism...


Please tell me this is an act and you really aren't this stupid!!!
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 07:29 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Please tell me this is an act and you really aren't this stupid!!!


Judging from the last few posts, it would be hard to believe it an act.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 08:38 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
They knew he was violent and had lethal weapons, yet no one stopped him?
IF u know that a man is violent
and that he has lethal weapons, then will u stop him, Rex ?

Please tell us what u will do?





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Aug, 2013 08:44 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Just as the first amendment trumps the second amendment and so on...
The First Amendment has never trumped the 2nd Amendment, Rex.

If u allege that it DOES,
then please cite us to some competent legal authority in proof of that notion; thank u.





David
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2013 02:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Please David cite us to some competent legal authority in proof of that notion that the first amendment doesn't come first for a reason; thank u.

You know one comes before two?

And the cart goes before the horse...

http://www.dyknow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/cart-before-the-horse.jpg

Guns without free speech is tyranny not democracy...

Guns without religious freedom is terrorism...

Guns without the right to protest is a police state... (Russia - Nazi Germany)

Guns without the first amendment is totalitarianism.

The constitution without the declaration of independence is also putting the cart before the horse...

The declaration sets us free and the constitution regulates that freedom...

Competent enough?

You know I thought of that all in my own little pea brain using simple deduction. I just wonder why you could not have figure that out for yourself...
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2013 03:06 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Please David cite us to some competent legal authority in proof of that notion that it doesn't; thank u.
No one can prove a negative; I suspect that u know that, Rex.
The old Latin maxim was:
"affirmante, non negante incumbit probatio."
That means that the burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE side,
i.e., upon him who affirms it to be true.





RexRed wrote:
You know one comes before two?
I do; what is your point ?



RexRed wrote:
And the cart goes before the horse...

http://www.dyknow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/cart-before-the-horse.jpg

Guns without free speech is tyranny not democracy...
I support ample possession of plenty of guns
and I support fully free speech. So what ?


RexRed wrote:
Guns without religious freedom is terrorism...
I fail to see that,
but it is moot, inasmuch as I support both possession of guns and religious freedom.



RexRed wrote:
Guns without the right to protest is a police state... (Russia - Nazi Germany)

Guns without the first amendment is totalitarianism.
That is one of the reasons for civilian possession of guns:
to overthrow tyranny, as we did in 1776 to 1783.
The Founders said that we might need to do it again.



RexRed wrote:
The constitution without the declaration of independence is also putting the cart before the horse...

The declaration sets us free and the constitution regulates that freedom...

Competent enough?
No, Rex; my request was that u offer proof
that the First Amendment trumps the 2nd Amendment.
U have not done that, nor shown that any amendment outranks another.
Indeed, it is arguable that later amendments shud outrank
earlier ones, in that amendments are CHANGES,
altering what went before each change; e.g., the 21st Amendment
REPEALED the 18th Amendment.

Get the point ?





David
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2013 07:16 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Guns without the first amendment is totalitarianism.
David wrote:
That is one of the reasons for civilian possession of guns:
to overthrow tyranny, as we did in 1776 to 1783.
The Founders said that we might need to do it again.


Comment:
Another reasons for guns are so a Fox News, racist, fascist segment of society can terrorize a legitimate democracy that won their right to govern by an overwhelming majority of WE THE PEOPLE...

Tyranny, democracy please David LEARN THE DIFFERENCE...

Overthrowing a democracy IS TYRANNY!

That is what Hitler's SS was, gun loving fascists that overthrew Europe's freedom loving democracies.. I would think one desiring to not appear like a fool would not repeat the same error twice.

Jews have a free and equal status in our current democracy and you are going to align yourself with tea party fundamentalist christian who blame Jews for the demise of their white Jesus?

http://www.military-quotes.com/norsk/bilder/hitler.jpg

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/pat-robertson-2.jpg

Hitler Quotes. “The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans (The Tea Party) and Jews."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

NRA: Arm the Blind! - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Thoughts on gun control..? - Discussion by komr98
The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons? - Question by Lustig Andrei
Gun control... - Question by Cyracuz
Does gun control help? - Discussion by Fatal Freedoms
Why Every Woman Should Carry a Gun - Discussion by cjhsa
Congress Acts to Defend Gun Rights - Discussion by oralloy
Texas follows NY Newspaper's lead - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 01:55:47