Big Gun Reform Idea From 2020 Democrats

[BULLDOG]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Or in some states, carry openly.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

Requiring a permit to carry concealed does not infringe upon the right, unless the state also outlaws open carry.

In such a case, you are licensing a right, which is unconstitutional.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Or in some states, carry openly.

But not all do. If some states require registration, fingerprints, training, and such to carry, then that tends to show that those restrictions are constitutional, even if some states choose not to require them.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

Requiring a permit to carry concealed does not infringe upon the right, unless the state also outlaws open carry.

In such a case, you are licensing a right, which is unconstitutional.

Tell the SC. Whining to me won't get you what you want.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Or in some states, carry openly.

But not all do. If some states require registration, fingerprints, training, and such to carry, then that tends to show that those restrictions are constitutional, even if some states choose not to require them.

Licensing a right is unconstitutional.

States may institute requirements that do not infringe upon the right, but no others.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

Requiring a permit to carry concealed does not infringe upon the right, unless the state also outlaws open carry.

In such a case, you are licensing a right, which is unconstitutional.

Tell the SC. Whining to me won't get you what you want.

You'll need to clarify your point. The SC agrees with me.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Or in some states, carry openly.

But not all do. If some states require registration, fingerprints, training, and such to carry, then that tends to show that those restrictions are constitutional, even if some states choose not to require them.

Licensing a right is unconstitutional.

States may institute requirements that do not infringe upon the right, but no others.

So state licenses are unconstitutional? Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

Requiring a permit to carry concealed does not infringe upon the right, unless the state also outlaws open carry.

In such a case, you are licensing a right, which is unconstitutional.

Tell the SC. Whining to me won't get you what you want.

You'll need to clarify your point. The SC agrees with me.

Not if you think it is unconstitutional to require a license to bear arms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Really? Please distinguish the two for us.

Saying a right won't be denied seems to be indistinguishable from a guarantee, does it not?

.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Or in some states, carry openly.

But not all do. If some states require registration, fingerprints, training, and such to carry, then that tends to show that those restrictions are constitutional, even if some states choose not to require them.

Licensing a right is unconstitutional.

States may institute requirements that do not infringe upon the right, but no others.

So state licenses are unconstitutional? Is that what you're trying to say?

A confirmation that you cannot read and comprehend English. Run along.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Really? Please distinguish the two for us.

Saying a right won't e denied seems to be indistinguishable from a guarantee, does it not?

.

That's exactly what it says about the right to vote. You nut bags keep trying to change this into whether there is a right to have guns. Of course there is. My responses here are, and have been concerning the previous claim that the right to vote isn't in the constitution. It is there just as prominent and forceful; as the right to own guns.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Really? Please distinguish the two for us.

Saying a right won't e denied seems to be indistinguishable from a guarantee, does it not?

.

That's exactly what it says about the right to vote. You nut bags keep trying to change this into whether there is a right to have guns. Of course there is. My responses here are, and have been concerning the previous claim that the right to vote isn't in the constitution. It is there just as prominent and forceful; as the right to own guns.

So post the text. We've been waiting.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Or in some states, carry openly.

Actually we have both.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Really? Please distinguish the two for us.

Saying a right won't e denied seems to be indistinguishable from a guarantee, does it not?

.

That's exactly what it says about the right to vote. You nut bags keep trying to change this into whether there is a right to have guns. Of course there is. My responses here are, and have been concerning the previous claim that the right to vote isn't in the constitution. It is there just as prominent and forceful; as the right to own guns.

So post the text. We've been waiting.

If you can't find the 15th amendment, I can't help you.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

The right to keep arms and to bear arms are linked. They are one and the same. If it is constitutional to require permits to bear them, it's constitutional to require permits to keep them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

The right to keep arms and to bear arms are linked. They are one and the same. If it is constitutional to require permits to bear them, it's constitutional to require permits to keep them.

So, what do we get in exchange for changing the right into a privilege, issuing a license, and charging a fee? ANYTHING?

If I am licensed to drive a huge, dangerous 18-wheel truck, should I be prevented from driving it, just because you're scared?

What restrictions will be relaxed in exchange for this licensing? Should it open the door for any and all types of weapons. I mean, we would be licensed, right?

And, you answers to these questions demonstrates your real intent. So, go on.

.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Really? Please distinguish the two for us.

Saying a right won't e denied seems to be indistinguishable from a guarantee, does it not?

.

That's exactly what it says about the right to vote. You nut bags keep trying to change this into whether there is a right to have guns. Of course there is. My responses here are, and have been concerning the previous claim that the right to vote isn't in the constitution. It is there just as prominent and forceful; as the right to own guns.

So post the text. We've been waiting.

If you can't find the 15th amendment, I can't help you.

If you cannot comprehend it, I cannot help you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

The right to keep arms and to bear arms are linked. They are one and the same. If it is constitutional to require permits to bear them, it's constitutional to require permits to keep them.

No, that is ridiculous.

I do have a permit, but even with one, I am not allowed to take my gun into a hospital or government building. I'm not allowed to take my weapon in gun-free zones which any place of business can be if they put up a sign.

But as a state that has open carry, I can take my gun anywhere without a permit as long as it's exposed. The permit pertains to carrying my gun concealed. Therefore it's constitutional that requirements are made for concealing my weapon. You have a right to bear arms, but no constitutional protection to hide your weapon in public.