Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

@RexRed,

Baldimo wrote:

I disregard morality? Because I think citizens should have access to guns?
Please tell me what my warped purpose is. This should be good.

RexRed wrote:

Funny, I think citizens should have access to guns too.
This is not enough to turn me into a racist though...

I would not for one minute want to step inside your warped and juvenile mentality or motives.

Figure your own darned self out. This should be good.

FOR THE RECORD:
I recognize that the Founders of this Republic, in its Bill of Rights,
just put some things BEYOND THE JURISDICTIONAL REACH
of government, including the right to self defense, for anyone.
For that reason, anyone of any race is within his Constitutional Rights
to buy Bibles, guns and newspapers.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
I disregard morality? Because I think citizens should have access to guns?
Please tell me what my warped purpose is. This should be good.
RexRed wrote:

Funny, I think citizens should have access to guns too.
This is not enough to turn me into a racist though...

I would not for one minute want to step inside your warped and juvenile mentality or motives.

Figure your own darned self out. This should be good.

FOR THE RECORD:
I recognize that the Founders of this Republic, in its Bill of Rights,
just put some things BEYOND THE JURISDICTIONAL REACH
of government, including the right to self defense, for anyone.
For that reason, anyone of any race is within his Constitutional Rights
to buy Bibles, guns and newspapers.

David

Guns are not meant to be used to fight our government, votes are.

I do not think of you as a racist David. Not sure though on that one.

I just think you have magnified the second amendment so far above the first amendment that it jeopardizes the first.

I don't hold out much hope of you ever understanding that.

It is that alone that pisses me off about you.

I am not against guns but I am also definitely not against the first amendment. That is why it is first.

"Overly" militarizing America through gun profits and GOP propaganda violates the first amendment in my opinion.

0 Replies

Another thing David, you have indicated you were a trial lawyer and were paid 500 dollars an hour. The most I have ever been paid is 75 dollars an hour for singing.

Yet you did not know that a police officer's word is worth that of two citizens?

I have really never studied law but I do know it takes two citizens to make a citizen's arrest...

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Guns versus the pursuit of happiness.

My pursuit of happiness led me into some nice gun shows!

David

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Baldimo wrote:

It seems you are on the side of the criminals. You want to remove guns from law biding citizens.
You would leave the guns in the hands of those who would rob and kill you. Do you not realize that?

RexRed wrote:

It seems you are so stupid you can't read...

I am not against guns for a law abiding citizens... For the umteenth time.

If u were HONEST and SINCERE about your sentiments, Rex,
then u woud not have refused
to dine with me unless I dis-armed.

I think that tells the tale of how u REALLY feel about it,
but that is not what u told Mr. Baldimo.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

Gun manufactures are also regulated. They have to be licensed at the Federal level. Ever hear of an FFL? Long vetting process for driving license? Hardly. There are no mandatory regulations to take drivers ed except if you 16 or 17 and that varies by state. If you wait till you are 18 then you only have to take a written and driving test. That is hardly a lengthy vetting process. You can read a book in a day and take the driving test that same day. Walk out of the DMV with a license to drive. No background checks required, they only check your state drivers record if you have one.

Kids under the age of 18 are not allowed to purchase guns, no one under the age of 21 is allowed to purchase a handgun. These are mostly federal laws with state law backing. When you purchase a gun for a gun dealer, YOU HAVE to have a background check done by the shop.

The only idiocy here is the fact that you think there are no regulations regarding the manufacturing, selling and purchasing of firearms. I don't see where racism comes into play with any of this.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Guns versus the pursuit of happiness.
My pursuit of happiness led me into some nice gun shows!

David

And your pursuit of happiness has led others to their grave. Sound happy to you?

Six children dead in murder-suicide
http://www.msnbc.com/daily-rundown/watch/six-children-dead-in-murder-suicide-331209795919

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Are you really blaming David for murders someone else committed? He likes guns and believes in lowered restrictions and you blame him? From the reading of the story, the police and justice system failed the family. He has a LONG record and I'm willing to bet the firearm used wasn't purchased legally. That would mean all your gun laws and restrictions in the world wouldn't have stopped him. Just as in a majority of the shootings, none of the laws, short of total confiscation would have prevented the crime. This is why I back a law which gives someone 10 years in prison just for having a gun during the commission of a crime.

Have you ever wondered why no one in this thread takes you seriously?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Are you really blaming David for murders someone else committed? He likes guns and believes in lowered restrictions and you blame him? From the reading of the story, the police and justice system failed the family. He has a LONG record and I'm willing to bet the firearm used wasn't purchased legally. That would mean all your gun laws and restrictions in the world wouldn't have stopped him. Just as in a majority of the shootings, none of the laws, short of total confiscation would have prevented the crime. This is why I back a law which gives someone 10 years in prison just for having a gun during the commission of a crime.

Have you ever wondered why no one in this thread takes you seriously?

I say there is a good possibility the gun was purchased legally considering how lax these "regulations" that David and you are against. Yes you are both responsible because you support lax gun regulation that allow guns to be seen as a right rather than a privilege. You encourage gun fetish obsessionism and criminal elements of society take advantage of the lax policies that you both support.. Indeed, you are responsible for the policies you support and directly responsible for deaths like these.

2 Replies

@RexRed,

What lax regulations would those be? Please be specific. Please also mention which regulations I don't support, since you seem to know me so well.

Sorry to tell you but the SCOTUS, the same SCOTUS that allowed the ACA, have already stated that it is a right to own a gun. This is the same SCOTUS that said DOMA was unconstitutional. You either accept all of their rulings or none of their rulings.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

What lax regulations would those be? Please be specific. Please also mention which regulations I don't support, since you seem to know me so well.

Sorry to tell you but the SCOTUS, the same SCOTUS that allowed the ACA, have already stated that it is a right to own a gun. This is the same SCOTUS that said DOMA was unconstitutional. You either accept all of their rulings or none of their rulings.

It is a privilege to own a gun and if you do something to negate that privilege then you lose your privilege to own a gun. It is a right to not own a gun and to not have to own a gun.

Something that is a right can never be taken away. A gun can be taken away but the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away.

The right to equality cannot be taken away, people may treat others unfairly but human dignity always remains.

Liberty can never be taken away because the pure heart will always be free.

Guns "can" be taken away while resentment, malintent... are left behind.

It is better for society that malintent is unarmed. The very idea that criminals not have guns proves that arms are not a right but a privilege.

If people were no longer permitted to vote the human right to vote would still not be diminished.

Even life cannot be taken away if there is a part of life that is eternal.

Unalienable rights cannot be taken away.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

An Amendment is a right, hence the Bill of Rights, The RIGHT to own a gun is in the 2nd Amendment. Why are trying to play with the meanings of words to fit your definition? No where in any of the founding documents or in any state law will you find the use of the word Privilege in accordance with guns. Driving a car? Yes, that is a privilege. Owning a gun as long as you are a law biding citizen is a right. The SCOTUS will once again disagree with you on your definition.

Rights can and are taken away on a regular basis. Become a felon and you no longer have the right to vote. The fact that people end up in jail and put to death proves that liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be denied.

The rest of your post is pointless.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

An Amendment is a right, hence the Bill of Rights, The RIGHT to own a gun is in the 2nd Amendment. Why are trying to play with the meanings of words to fit your definition? No where in any of the founding documents or in any state law will you find the use of the word Privilege in accordance with guns. Driving a car? Yes, that is a privilege. Owning a gun as long as you are a law biding citizen is a right. The SCOTUS will once again disagree with you on your definition.

Rights can and are taken away on a regular basis. Become a felon and you no longer have the right to vote. The fact that people end up in jail and put to death proves that liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be denied.

The rest of your post is pointless.

You can lose your privilege to drive a car just like you can lose your privilege to own a gun.

You can't lose your right for self defense but you can lose your privilege to own a gun..

2 Replies

@RexRed,

Baldimo wrote:

Are you really blaming David for murders someone else committed? He likes guns and believes in lowered restrictions and you blame him? From the reading of the story, the police and justice system failed the family. He has a LONG record and I'm willing to bet the firearm used wasn't purchased legally. That would mean all your gun laws and restrictions in the world wouldn't have stopped him. Just as in a majority of the shootings, none of the laws, short of total confiscation would have prevented the crime. This is why I back a law which gives someone 10 years in prison just for having a gun during the commission of a crime.

Have you ever wondered why no one in this thread takes you seriously?

RexRed wrote:

I say there is a good possibility the gun was purchased legally considering how lax
these "regulations" that David and you are against.

On the Aristotelian Square of Logical Opposition,
the 2nd Amendment is an "e" proposition: universal negative.
". . . shall not be infringed" does not mean infringed a little bit.

The same "regulations" legitimately apply to possession of guns
as apply to possession of Bibles and newspapers.
Government was explicitly denied authority in that field,
by the Instrument of its creation: the US Constitution.

In other words, government was given permission to exist,
subject to the understanding (among others)
that it will have no authority to interefere
in a citizen's possession of Bibles or guns.

There were NO POLICE in the USA in the 17OOs,
when the Bill of Rights was enacted. Each citizen was expected
to take care of himself and was expected to have the means to DO so.
Rex, u advocate the rape of the Constitution
by USURPATION of authority, by fraud.

RexRed wrote:

Yes you are both responsible because you support lax gun regulation
that allow guns to be seen as a right rather than a privilege.

Government has no authority to interfere in a citizen's
possession, at all, not "lax" as u put it.
If a man has a proven history of violent crime,
then he shud be ISOLATED from society for those crimes,
with no attention to anyone's gun possession.
I recommend banishment, preferably not on this Continent.

RexRed wrote:

You encourage gun fetish obsessionism and criminal
elements of society take advantage of the lax policies that you both support..
Indeed, you are responsible for the policies you support and directly
responsible for deaths like these.

I question no man's right to end his life; that's HIS business.
Hopefully, his family will be sufficiently well armed to defend
their lives from anyone who tries to kill them.

My dad was a quiet, peaceful fellow,
but if he had tried to murder me,
he 'd have gotten shot pretty quick,
if I possibly coud. I had my favorite revolver everywhere, then.

I don t carry a gun in my house, now. I feel 1OO% safe,
but feelings are not always justified. I felt perfectly safe
when someone took a gunshot at me, years ago.

I heard it said last nite on-line by "TheYankeeMarshal"
that (he alleges) the vast, vast, vast majority of of self defenses
with use of guns are within the home, not out in the world.
He did not cite to any source of authority. I don t believe it.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Owning a gun isn't a privilege. Care to show me where is says it is a privilege? I'll say it again because you seem to be slow. The 2nd Amendment is part of The Bill of RIGHTS.

You are going to have to come up with a law that says it isn't a right. As I noted the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

On the Aristotelian Square of Logical Opposition,
the 2nd Amendment is an "e" proposition: universal negative.
". . . shall not be infringed" does not mean infringed a little bit.

The same "regulations" legitimately apply to possession of guns
as apply to possession of Bibles and newspapers.
Government was explicitly denied authority in that field,
by the Instrument of its creation: the US Constitution.

Except your argument fails in the real world.
We do restrict religion in the US when it affects others. We do restrict speech when it affects others. The same applies to guns. The rights of the gun don't outweigh the rights of persons when they conflict with a gun.

1 Reply

Update:
Florida Man Shoots Daughter, 6 Grandchildren in Apparent Murder-Suicide, Police Say
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-investigating-apparent-murder-suicide-florida-town/story?id=25607773

1 Reply

@parados,

By the terms of the Bill of Rights,
government has NO AUTHORITY to interfere
with a citizen's possession of defensive personal guns.
Gun control laws are only USURPATIONS of fake authority
on a foundation of hoax, akin in principle
to a bank teller plundering the vault, on his way home,
taking home samples.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Update:
Florida Man Shoots Daughter, 6 Grandchildren in Apparent Murder-Suicide, Police Say
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-investigating-apparent-murder-suicide-florida-town/story?id=25607773

Rex thinks it woud have been nicer,
if the guy had used a bom or an ax on them.

I wish that the victims (those who were able)
had been sufficiently well armed to prevail,
but, instead, thay were all OBAYING GUN CONTROL LAWS, so thay got the death penalty.

From the age of 8 on up,
I was ready to defend myself; these were not.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

You can lose your privilege to drive a car
just like you can lose your privilege to own a gun.

You can't lose your right for self defense
but you can lose your privilege to own a gun..

U are hallucinating a change in the language of the Bill of Rights,
but we can directly read what the Constitution actually says.
We do not accept your hallucination.
The 2nd Amendment tells us that the people have a RIGHT
to bear arms, regardless of how much u wish and pretend
that it were less than a right. Freedom wins! Rex loses.

David

0 Replies

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know