Notice Regardless of what the gun nuts say

[bodyman5000 and 1]

None of those things are detrimental to the safety of others. We've installed regulations on amendments for safety reasons before.

Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater without penalty if someone is hurt?

Sorry but it's NOT your constitutional right to own a killing machine. And even if it was, that right can be regulated for public safety.

If you don't see how similar your argument here is to people defending Stop and Frisk I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Denny Crane]

Guns were used to suppress the civil rights movement.

How'd that work out for the Jim Crow supporters?

That would be a revolution, too. Revolutions aren't always successful or good ideas.

 

[dviss1]

If you don't see how similar your argument here is to people defending Stop and Frisk I don't know what to tell you.

The fact that you can equate the two is the problem.

 

[dviss1]

That would be a revolution, too. Revolutions aren't always successful or good ideas.

Jesus Denny, what was the civil rights movement?

Don't answer:

REVOLUTION.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Sorry but it's NOT your constitutional right to own a killing machine.

Hmm...I'm not exactly sure how you can read the 2nd as not defining owning "a killing machine" as a constitutional right.

I don't disagree with your sentiment that the right can be restricted or regulated, or even in certain cases rescinded, but it most certainly exists.

 

[Denny Crane]

Jesus Denny, what was the civil rights movement?

Don't answer:

REVOLUTION.

The Civil Rights movement wasn't entirely non-violent. Black Panthers, Malcolm X, New Panthers, etc. King was highly visible, but so were the others.

 

[Lanny]

Hmm...I'm not exactly sure how you can read the 2nd as not defining owning "a killing machine" as a constitutional right.

I don't disagree with your sentiment that the right can be restricted or regulated, or even in certain cases rescinded, but it most certainly exists.

Can you own a chain gun? How about a hand grenade? Maybe a modern tank. Oh, I know, how about an atomic bomb? You mean we can limit killing machines?

 

[dviss1]

The Civil Rights movement wasn't entirely non-violent. Black Panthers, Malcolm X, New Panthers, etc. King was highly visible, but so were the others.

Really? Just like Huey Newton assaulted those police officers huh?

Yeah no... The violence was caused by the racist whites. Anything said to the contrary is revisionist history.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Can you own a chain gun? How about a hand grenade? Maybe a modern tank. Oh, I know, how about an atomic bomb? You mean we can limit killing machines?

I believe I said that I don't disagree with the sentiment that the right can be restricted. Which means I agree that it can be.

So...what was your point again?

 

[Denny Crane]

Really? Just like Huey Newton assaulted those police officers huh?

Yeah no... The violence was caused by the racist whites. Anything said to the contrary is revisionist history.

So you think violence can only be on one side?

That makes no sense.

Regardless of how violent whites at the time may have been, if blacks were violent, too, then they were violent, too.

 

[dviss1]

Hmm...I'm not exactly sure how you can read the 2nd as not defining owning "a killing machine" as a constitutional right.

I don't disagree with your sentiment that the right can be restricted or regulated, or even in certain cases rescinded, but it most certainly exists.

Well regulated militia is also part of the amendment too right? Then there's this:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/militia-act-establishes-conscription-under-federal-law

 

[MarAzul]

Fake news. I hate how y'all start with this BULLSHIT notion.

It's fucking bullshit through and through and is the hugest strawman...

More insults? Why not stick to the post and leave your characterizations out of it?

Oh it seem like a very reserved reply to the post which you liked, in responds.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

The fact that you can equate the two is the problem.

The fact that you don't apply logic and the same rules to every situation is the problem. Not me.

I'm against Stop and Frisk for the same reason I'm against all of your gun ideas. They are both unconstitutional.


Should we let people Dviss1 thinks are mentally ill be searched randomly by the cops?

Kingspeed gets an extra search at the airport every time he flies?

 

[Lanny]

Oh it seem like a very reserved reply to the post which you liked, in responds.

I'd hate to see your more vile posts.

 

[Natebishop3]

Can you own a chain gun?

Yes. You have to apply for the right permits, but yes you can own one.

How about a hand grenade?

Probably, yes. We have demolitions experts who use controlled explosives with the right permits.

Maybe a modern tank.

Define modern. For a small fortune you can absolutely own a tank in the US, and you can fire it if you have the right permits.... of course, it might not go well for you.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2015/10/steve_preston_killed_in_tank_e.html

 

[BrianFromWA]

None of those things are detrimental to the safety of others. We've installed regulations on amendments for safety reasons before.
Sorry but it's NOT your constitutional right to own a killing machine. And even if it was, that right can be regulated for public safety.

I don't mean to get semantic if it's not what you meant, but what do you think an "arm" is?
Where we differ is that I don't think (and based on voting, a majority right now don't think, though as you assert that may change) that doing more regulation of a law-abiding citizen makes it safer. I submit that people aren't safer in theaters now because you've infringed on the law-abiding citizen's right to yell "Fire!", they're safer because we've made it so you can't smoke inside them, they have to have multiple exits, you have to have adequate walkway sizes, max capacity codes, etc.
As just a puerile example, the current laws in FL ban guns from schools at all hours. Yet a criminal brought a gun to school. And violated the law against murder.
I'm all for constitutional regulations, but as I wrote above (that hasn't been commented on yet), registries have been shown to be abused by those in power. Even "background checks" without due process have removed Constitutional rights from people. I think we already have a lot of laws on the books about gun ownership and use, to the point that I couldn't purchase one. Yet somehow people get killed in BAL, CHI, Parkland, Chattanooga, Navy Yard, Fort Hood, etc. when bad people violate laws that good people have to live by. As stated above, I can live with that (or leave the country) for things like driving, health care, abortion, etc. I don't have to live with it for Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Keeping and Bearing Arms, Voting, Self-Incrimination, etc.

 

[Lanny]

I believe I said that I don't disagree with the sentiment that the right can be restricted. Which means I agree that it can be.

So...what was your point again?

My point was misplaced. It should have been directed elsewhere. Sorry for that. I guess that's what happens when you try to juggle too many threads.

 

[Lanny]

Yes. You have to apply for the right permits, but yes you can own one.



Probably, yes. We have demolitions experts who use controlled explosives with the right permits.



Define modern. For a small fortune you can absolutely own a tank in the US, and you can fire it if you have the right permits.... of course, it might not go well for you.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2015/10/steve_preston_killed_in_tank_e.html

Then, you admit there are restrictions on the ownership of such weapons.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Guns were used to suppress the civil rights movement.

How'd that work out for the Jim Crow supporters?

The irony of your statement is that Dr. King was a gun-owning Republican who supported black people's right to own a gun. As did many other black people.

 

[MarAzul]

I'd hate to see your more vile posts.

I am always very nice with honest, sincerer people.

 

[dviss1]

So you think violence can only be on one side?

That makes no sense.

Regardless of how violent whites at the time may have been, if blacks were violent, too, then they were violent, too.

We passed civil rights with nonviolent action no matter what history you want to revise. You might find some bullshit somewhere but I'll believe it when I believe it was called "The Triangle Trade".

 

[Jade Falcon]

Then, you admit there are restrictions on the ownership of such weapons.

An AR-15 or AK-47 are NOT battle tanks though. Regardless of how much Liberals want to convince us otherwise.

Charles Whitman didn't use an "assault rifle" to kill people in Texas in 1966. He used a 6mm bolt-action Remington.

Neither did the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho. He used 2 pistols.

I can also think of two other mass shootings that were committed with nothing more than a pump-action shotgun.

And what is the Liberal response? "Expanded background checks".....whatever the fuck that means; they never tell you because they don't know themselves.........and magazine capacity restrictions.....you know, because it's harder for criminals to kill someone with 10 rounds in their pistol rather than 15......

Liberals are SO fucking stupid on the issue of firearms that it is appalling. The worst part about it is that they dupe the gullible and ignorant in this country, and they far outnumber the informed and educated.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Well regulated militia is also part of the amendment too right? Then there's this:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/militia-act-establishes-conscription-under-federal-law

OK--you're going to have to help me out with how the existence of the prefatory clause means that an individual citizen doesn't have a right to own a gun.

Madison made it pretty clear in Federalist 46 that state militias would serve the role of opposing a federal army in the case of a tyrannical government, and that those would be composed of ordinary citizens who would be armed. Thus, I've always read that clause as providing the reason why the right to bear arms must not be infringed, which itself is in keeping with the purpose of the bill of rights as a whole--to protect the people from potential overreach of the government.

Now, if you believe that the whole purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid--as many do--then I'd imagine an amendment to repeal would be on the agenda. But that doesn't invalidate the amendment's original purpose or meaning, which is that citizens do, in fact, have a constitutional right to "own a killing machine" (within the parameters of existing SCOTUS-approved regulation/restriction).

 

[dviss1]

The irony of your statement is that Dr. King was a gun-owning Republican who supported black people's right to own a gun. As did many other black people.

It's not ironic. Y'all just aren't listening and want to apply your crappy false narratives.

No one is talking about taking your guns away nor your right to own one.

We will however, like it or fucking not, regulate it for our safety.

Y'all talk a big game like about mental health, but really are giving lip service and don't want to do shit.

 

[dviss1]

OK--you're going to have to help me out with how the existence of the prefatory clause means that an individual citizen doesn't have a right to own a gun.

Madison made it pretty clear in Federalist 46 that state militias would serve the role of opposing a federal army in the case of a tyrannical government, and that those would be composed of ordinary citizens who would be armed. Thus, I've always read that clause as providing the reason why the right to bear arms must not be infringed, which itself is in keeping with the purpose of the bill of rights as a whole--to protect the people from potential overreach of the government.

Now, if you believe that the whole purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid--as many do--then I'd imagine an amendment to repeal would be on the agenda. But that doesn't invalidate the amendment's original purpose or meaning, which is that citizens do, in fact, have a constitutional right to "own a killing machine".

The federalist papers are NOT the constitution and frankly I'm a bit tired of them being brought up. The comma in the 2nd amendment doesn't separate it into 2 rights.

Bottom line, it needs regulation.

 

[dviss1]

Madison made it pretty clear in Federalist 46 that state militias would serve the role of opposing a federal army in the case of a tyrannical government, and that those would be composed of ordinary citizens who would be armed. Thus, I've always read that clause as providing the reason why the right to bear arms must not be infringed, which itself is in keeping with the purpose of the bill of rights as a whole--to protect the people from potential overreach of the government.

Now, if you believe that the whole purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid--as many do--then I'd imagine an amendment to repeal would be on the agenda. But that doesn't invalidate the amendment's original purpose or meaning, which is that citizens do, in fact, have a constitutional right to "own a killing machine" (within the parameters of existing SCOTUS-approved regulation/restriction).

Where are the militias?? They're non existent.

 

[dviss1]

And frankly, since this is really starting to piss me off how y'all want to mischaracterize my stance:

Our gun laws should be like Switzerland's.

Look them up. But before you do ask yourself this:

Why did Hitler NOT attack Switzerland?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The federalist papers are NOT the constitution and frankly I'm a bit tired of them being brought up. The comma in the 2nd amendment doesn't separate it into 2 rights.

No, they're not, but they help to explain the rationale behind various parts of it, as in this instance.

More information is rarely a bad thing.

And no, the comma doesn't separate the 2nd into two separate rights. But the text clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I'm not exactly sure what other right you think the 2nd was intended to protect/define? Perhaps you care to help me out with your interpretation of the 2nd, as you believe the framers intended?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

And frankly, since this is really starting to piss me off how y'all want to mischaracterize my stance:

I apologize if you feel I was mischaracterizing your stance. My, "if you feel it should be repealed" comment was not intended to be a statement of what I think you believe, and I'm sorry if it appeared to be so.

 

[Jade Falcon]

It's not ironic. Y'all just aren't listening and want to apply your crappy false narratives.

No one is talking about taking your guns away nor your right to own one.

We will however, like it or fucking not, regulate it for our safety.

Y'all talk a big game like about mental health, but really are giving lip service and don't want to do shit.

What do you think the word "BAN" means bro?

I want you to tell me why this is wrong:



I want you to explain to me why that is wrong. If you can do that, then I'll start taking you seriously about the issue of firearms ownership. Ignore the fact that it's a meme, because the message in it is completely serious, and one that gun owners all across this country have to deal with on a daily basis.

And frankly, since this is really starting to piss me off how y'all want to mischaracterize my stance:

Our gun laws should be like Switzerland's.

Look them up.

Just curious: what do you think of Australia's firearm laws?



That's Australia. I don't want that bullshit coming here, thank you.