Big Gun Reform Idea From 2020 Democrats

[BULLDOG]

"Shall not be infringed" comes to mind.

The constitution also says the right to vote will not be denied. How is one more important than the other?

You mean, why are felons denied the right to vote?

If so, you make a sound argument. I think they should be allowed to vote after they have served all their time and/or completed the conditions of parole.

.

I didn't say anything about felons voting. That would fall under the heading of regulation, which is not an infringement.

I disagree on the meaning of the word "infringement" but let's accept your interpretation for now.

Wouldn't denying freed felons the right to vote be an infringement?

.

These idiot Moon Bats like this dumbass Bulldog asshole wouldn't know the meaning of the word infringement if it was tattooed on his forehead.

They think infringement means the government can make it illegal to keep and bear arms. .

Really, they believe that. It is like they were absent from grade school when the teacher discussed what the word meant.

So you think That is what I believe? You're pretty goofy, aren't you?

 

[BULLDOG]

I didn't say anything about felons voting. That would fall under the heading of regulation, which is not an infringement.

I disagree on the meaning of the word "infringement" but let's accept your interpretation for now.

Wouldn't denying freed felons the right to vote be an infringement?

.

I wouldn't presume to know more than the Supreme court, and they don't seem to have a problem with it.

No problem with what? Denying reformed felons the right to vote for the rest of their lives?

.

That is what you are talking about isn't it?

So, you would have no problem with the SCOTUS allowing other limitations on the right to vote?

.

They already do. Gerrymandered districts are allowed to remain when by definition they are an infringement on a persons vote.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The constitution also says the right to vote will not be denied. How is one more important than the other?

You mean, why are felons denied the right to vote?

If so, you make a sound argument. I think they should be allowed to vote after they have served all their time and/or completed the conditions of parole.

.

I didn't say anything about felons voting. That would fall under the heading of regulation, which is not an infringement.

I disagree on the meaning of the word "infringement" but let's accept your interpretation for now.

Wouldn't denying freed felons the right to vote be an infringement?

.

I wouldn't presume to know more than the Supreme court, and they don't seem to have a problem with it.

No problem with what? Denying reformed felons the right to vote for the rest of their lives?

.

Dems don't want you protected

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

[Q


Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.

You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.

OK, so educate me. Show me where in the constitution the right to bear arms is any more important or protected than the right to vote. One right wing idiot even said the right to vote wasn't even in there,

And one Left wing idiot failed to produce the relevant constitutional text to prove the existence of said right.

It's mentioned in the constitution 5 times, but you can start with the 19th amendment.

Here's a hint. No text found in the Constitution guarantees a right to vote.

Now run along. Traffic is calling.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

No it cannot.

It is very simple a right is something that cannot be licensed

Well, you better head on up to the Supreme Court and tell them. Gun Licenses have been required for a long time in some places, and the SC doesn't see anything wrong with them.

The only licensing case brought before the SCOTUS. You can bet another will show up eventually. Do note the date and reason for dismissal.

Burton v. Sills •; 1969; 394 U.S. 812; 344
[The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a 2nd Amendment suit against a discretionary firearm licensing law, citing cases that held the 2nd Amendment inapplicable to the states; the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question.]

 

[M14 Shooter]

1 Make it hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
2: Ban and confiscate as many rifles, handguns and shotguns as possible.

What did I miss?

 

[Scamp]

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic rifles. Nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, pistols, or revolvers...

The 2nd Amendment, as written, RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT.

The technology of the firearm is irrelevant.

The restrictions on the government remain the same, regardless of the firearm.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms.

It FORBIDS government interference in the right to keep and bear arms. PERIOD.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

So obviously, when a US Congressman votes for a gun law, they have violated their oath of office to support the US Constitution...Right?

 

[Flash]

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic rifles. Nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, pistols, or revolvers...

The 2nd Amendment, as written, RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT.

The technology of the firearm is irrelevant.

The restrictions on the government remain the same, regardless of the firearm.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms.

It FORBIDS government interference in the right to keep and bear arms. PERIOD.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

So obviously, when a US Congressman votes for a gun law, they have violated their oath of office to support the US Constitution...Right?

Correct!

It is against the highest law in the land to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. If an elected official, law enforcement officer or a judge does it then it is illegal.

Too bad the courts do not apply the same strict scrutiny on the Second as they do the other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. In fact it is despicable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

Forcing people to get fingerprinted, take classes, and licensed to exercise a right is not reasonable regulation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

There are many differences.

First of all, this bill would require people to be fingerprinted to purchase a firearm. That's not required with voter-id. Then it says you must take lessons to get this permit of theirs. We don't have classes to vote with voter-id. You simply bring reliable proof of who you are and get one.

The biggest difference however is that Voter-Id only provides proof of who you are when you do vote, not to keep track of you and what you own.

I would just love to see the reaction by the Democrats if we on the right said we're creating a law that makes you get a criminal background check before being allowed to vote.

Starting to see the differences now???

Background checks don't require fingerprints now. There isn't much reason they will any time soon. Permits aren't required in very many states either. Since paperwork for current background checks are destroyed by law, I don' see much chance of keeping track of a person who buys a gun anyway. You got anything else? Your complaints just don't hold up. I haven't looked at the particular bill you mention, and it might have some objectionable things in it, but universal background checks can easily be enacted without the things you just complained about.

Great, so if we try to do that with voting, you on the left would have no problem with that?

For crying out loud, your comrades have been complaining how discriminatory it was obtaining a simple ID. Now you're going to tell me the left would have no problem with background checks and fingerprinting to vote? How many times have they taken the state to court just for ID's?????

I'm just trying to see if you are honest enough to admit your argument can be equally applied to other things, or if you insist it only applies to guns. So which is it? If you insist the constitution prevents rules on gun ownership, you have to admit it prevents rules on voting. Of course that only applies if you have any integrity.

You are trying to compare going to a DMV and getting a voter ID to taking classes, getting licensed, and getting fingerprinted?

So who is going to pay for licenses, training and fingerprinting? If you say the government, do we really need more expense on top of the 21 trillion in debt we already have? If you say the individual applying for a license, then it's in essence similar to a poll tax which was ruled unconstitutional because then only people with money can afford a license.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are no laws that can stop people from doing anything, including mass murders. Take away guns, U-Hauls would be the new weapon of mass destruction.

But laws and penalties can stop some people from doing crimes. For instance, let's say they made rape legal. Do you suppose there would be more rapes, less rapes, or about the same?

I'm not sure how many people could be murdered with a U-Haul in a school in just a few minutes. Has that ever happened before?

I didn't know we were talking just about schools. I thought we were talking about mass murders period.

Now if a killer has children in mind, a truck can mow down dozens of kids that are walking home on the sidewalk in groups after school. The Dayton shooting in my state was done outside. The killer waited for all the bars to close where he knew groups of people would be walking and likely not armed since it's against the law to consume alcohol and carry a weapon in this state. He could have done more harm with a truck than a gun. I would assume the reason he didn't is because he didn't expect such a quick response by our wonderful police.

You're just getting silly now. If U-hauls were as effective at killing people as guns are, the military would have a U-Haul brigade. Try to not be so childish.

Be so childish? You should get out of the basement once in a while.

Toronto is the most recent of many deliberate attacks involving vehicles

A Short History of Vehicles Being Used as Deadly Weapons

Still no U-Haul brigade. I wonder why.

Because using U-Hauls would be ineffective against armed people. Very effective against unsuspecting unarmed people.

 

[BULLDOG]

[Q


Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.

You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.

OK, so educate me. Show me where in the constitution the right to bear arms is any more important or protected than the right to vote. One right wing idiot even said the right to vote wasn't even in there,

And one Left wing idiot failed to produce the relevant constitutional text to prove the existence of said right.

It's mentioned in the constitution 5 times, but you can start with the 19th amendment.

Here's a hint. No text found in the Constitution guarantees a right to vote.

Now run along. Traffic is calling.

No text guaranteed the right to bear arms either. There is text saying rights to each won't be denied. There is a distinction there, but I doubt you are able to comprehend it.

 

[BULLDOG]

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

No it cannot.

It is very simple a right is something that cannot be licensed

Well, you better head on up to the Supreme Court and tell them. Gun Licenses have been required for a long time in some places, and the SC doesn't see anything wrong with them.

The only licensing case brought before the SCOTUS. You can bet another will show up eventually. Do note the date and reason for dismissal.

Burton v. Sills •; 1969; 394 U.S. 812; 344
[The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a 2nd Amendment suit against a discretionary firearm licensing law, citing cases that held the 2nd Amendment inapplicable to the states; the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question.]

Get back with me if that ever happens.

 

[BULLDOG]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

Forcing people to get fingerprinted, take classes, and licensed to exercise a right is not reasonable regulation.

If you don't mind, I prefer to go by what the SC says over some right wing gun nut on the internet.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

Forcing people to get fingerprinted, take classes, and licensed to exercise a right is not reasonable regulation.

If you don't mind, I prefer to go by what the SC says over some right wing gun nut on the internet.

The Supreme Court said that it's constitutional to put people through all that just to own a firearm? When did that happen and what case was this?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.

You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.

OK, so educate me. Show me where in the constitution the right to bear arms is any more important or protected than the right to vote. One right wing idiot even said the right to vote wasn't even in there,

And one Left wing idiot failed to produce the relevant constitutional text to prove the existence of said right.

It's mentioned in the constitution 5 times, but you can start with the 19th amendment.

Here's a hint. No text found in the Constitution guarantees a right to vote.

Now run along. Traffic is calling.

No text guaranteed the right to bear arms either. There is text saying rights to each won't be denied. There is a distinction there, but I doubt you are able to comprehend it.

That you cannot comprehend a simple English phrase has no bearing on reality.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

No it cannot.

It is very simple a right is something that cannot be licensed

Well, you better head on up to the Supreme Court and tell them. Gun Licenses have been required for a long time in some places, and the SC doesn't see anything wrong with them.

The only licensing case brought before the SCOTUS. You can bet another will show up eventually. Do note the date and reason for dismissal.

Burton v. Sills •; 1969; 394 U.S. 812; 344
[The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a 2nd Amendment suit against a discretionary firearm licensing law, citing cases that held the 2nd Amendment inapplicable to the states; the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question.]

Get back with me if that ever happens.

Why would I? You've made your decision, in error.

 

[BULLDOG]

What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

Forcing people to get fingerprinted, take classes, and licensed to exercise a right is not reasonable regulation.

If you don't mind, I prefer to go by what the SC says over some right wing gun nut on the internet.

The Supreme Court said that it's constitutional to put people through all that just to own a firearm? When did that happen and what case was this?

Many states issue gun licenses that require all those things now. If it wasn't constitutional, do you think the gun nuts wouldn't have brought a case to stop it?

 

[Soupnazi630]

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

Forcing people to get fingerprinted, take classes, and licensed to exercise a right is not reasonable regulation.

If you don't mind, I prefer to go by what the SC says over some right wing gun nut on the internet.

The Supreme Court said that it's constitutional to put people through all that just to own a firearm? When did that happen and what case was this?

Many states issue gun licenses that require all those things now. If it wasn't constitutional, do you think the gun nuts wouldn't have brought a case to stop it?

Name such a state

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,

Sure it can if it falls under reasonable regulation.

Forcing people to get fingerprinted, take classes, and licensed to exercise a right is not reasonable regulation.

If you don't mind, I prefer to go by what the SC says over some right wing gun nut on the internet.

The Supreme Court said that it's constitutional to put people through all that just to own a firearm? When did that happen and what case was this?

Many states issue gun licenses that require all those things now. If it wasn't constitutional, do you think the gun nuts wouldn't have brought a case to stop it?

No, states require gun licenses to carry a gun in public, not to own one. In other words it's optional and not a requirement. If you want a CCW, you have to do those things. If you don't want to do those things, then you can keep your gun in your home.