Bottom line question...

[rightwinger]

Why do libs constantly say "they don't want to take your guns" When it's obvious they do?

Why do conservatives alway scream that people are taking their guns when nobody has?

 

[Old Rocks]

Changing the Constitution in the method prescribed by the Constitution is, by definition, Constitutional. Attempting to change it by any other method is not. By Presidential fiat for example.

The Presidents' power of Executive Orders can only be used to carry out existing laws. If you lived in a state like Conn would you be willing to resort to violence to oppose the new stricter legislation? What if, and I do mean if, Congress passed such measures, would you resort to violence then?

I do not think that such laws are Constitutional failing a Constitutional amendment. I believe that the USSC will strike such laws down. If I lived in Ca. New York, or Conn. I would move elsewhere. On a Federal level I would expect things to get nasty pretty quickly-probably before the USSC could rule-if any confiscation were involved. I would not meekly turn over or register my weapons in any case. I think most of the "...cold dead hands folks" mean exactly that.

I read that they are "confiscating" (stealing) the weapons of people based on the fact that they have had prescriptions for anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medications at one time or another in New York. I think such foolishness on a National level would start a Civil war. Hence my question.

No, what you are doing is wishing for, and advocating such a war.

You are one sick puppy. Only a very few people would attempt to join in your insanity, and they would be taken care of quickly by law enforcement.

I have owned guns for nearly sixty years now, and never has anyone tried to take them. But they are not the kind of guns that crazies like to take to schools, malls, or the work place.

There is no second amendment gaurantee for types of weapons that the government decides are too dangerous to be in the hands of the general public. That has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Without a special license, you cannot own a fully automatic weapon. You cannot own hand grenades, and a number of other weapons. A couple more horrors like Sandy Hook, almost gauranteed by the numbers of military weapons sold in the last few months, and you will not be able to have your military weapon outside your home.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No, what you are doing is wishing for, and advocating such a war.

No, I do not wish for, nor advocate, any such thing. I have fought a war and nobody who has seen war wishes to see another. Especially if it is to be fought at home among people you care about. Which is exactly why I truly hope that willfully ignorant people like yourself will wake up before you push the whole gun thing too far.
I do not own a AR-15. I have carried an M-16 in combat and don't consider it especially lethal. Most of our guys that walked point carried a pump action shotgun and considered it better for the job. Most deer rifles are more powerful by far. This is simply a case of those who know the least about a subject feeling qualified to dictate to the general public against their best interest.
You know damn well that none of the legislation will have any impact on the people who commit these crimes but you push it anyway. You folks have simply panicked and are flying off in all directions whether they make any since or not.
When you're picking through the ruins of what used to be your home, don't say you weren't given fair warning.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, what you are doing is wishing for, and advocating such a war.

No, I do not wish for, nor advocate, any such thing. I have fought a war and nobody who has seen war wishes to see another. Especially if it is to be fought at home among people you care about. Which is exactly why I truly hope that willfully ignorant people like yourself will wake up before you push the whole gun thing too far.
I do not own a AR-15. I have carried an M-16 in combat and don't consider it especially lethal. Most of our guys that walked point carried a pump action shotgun and considered it better for the job. Most deer rifles are more powerful by far. This is simply a case of those who know the least about a subject feeling qualified to dictate to the general public against their best interest.
You know damn well that none of the legislation will have any impact on the people who commit these crimes but you push it anyway. You folks have simply panicked and are flying off in all directions whether they make any since or not.
When you're picking through the ruins of what used to be your home, don't say you weren't given fair warning.

When are you going to start? C'mon......the suspense is killing us.

 

[9thIDdoc]

When are you going to start? C'mon......the suspense is killing us.

I'm not on here for any reason other than I would like to see it avoided.

 

[LoneLaugher]

When are you going to start? C'mon......the suspense is killing us.

I'm not on here for any reason other than I would like to see it avoided.

Really? That is why you challenged those who disagree with you in the OP?

I get the feeling that you are waiting with great anticipation for the images of demestic unrest to come across your TV screen. You really come off as someone who wants to see it.....not avoid it.

 

[bendog]

Oh, I thought the title titlilated towards another GLBT thread. Another fantasy of the looming Oceania ... personally I get to sleep by envisioning a horse, a prarie, a bedroll and starlit skies.

 

[9thIDdoc]

When are you going to start? C'mon......the suspense is killing us.

I'm not on here for any reason other than I would like to see it avoided.

Really? That is why you challenged those who disagree with you in the OP?

I get the feeling that you are waiting with great anticipation for the images of demestic unrest to come across your TV screen. You really come off as someone who wants to see it.....not avoid it.

I haven't challenged anyone to do anything other than to think twice and be careful. You have a problem with that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

When are you going to start? C'mon......the suspense is killing us.

I'm not on here for any reason other than I would like to see it avoided.

Really? That is why you challenged those who disagree with you in the OP?

I get the feeling that you are waiting with great anticipation for the images of demestic unrest to come across your TV screen. You really come off as someone who wants to see it.....not avoid it.

I haven't challenged anyone to do anything other than to think twice and be careful. You have a problem with that?

For fuck's sake. Be honest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Changing the Constitution in the method prescribed by the Constitution is, by definition, Constitutional. Attempting to change it by any other method is not. By Presidential fiat for example.

The Presidents' power of Executive Orders can only be used to carry out existing laws. If you lived in a state like Conn would you be willing to resort to violence to oppose the new stricter legislation? What if, and I do mean if, Congress passed such measures, would you resort to violence then?

I do not think that such laws are Constitutional failing a Constitutional amendment. I believe that the USSC will strike such laws down. If I lived in Ca. New York, or Conn. I would move elsewhere. On a Federal level I would expect things to get nasty pretty quickly-probably before the USSC could rule-if any confiscation were involved. I would not meekly turn over or register my weapons in any case. I think most of the "...cold dead hands folks" mean exactly that.

I read that they are "confiscating" (stealing) the weapons of people based on the fact that they have had prescriptions for anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medications at one time or another in New York. I think such foolishness on a National level would start a Civil war. Hence my question.

You’re ‘read’ incorrectly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do libs constantly say "they don't want to take your guns" When it's obvious they do?

Why do conservatives alway scream that people are taking their guns when nobody has?

Or will.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

One, you are not competent to make those decisions.

Two, try it and you will undoubtedly die, I would image.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Presidents' power of Executive Orders can only be used to carry out existing laws. If you lived in a state like Conn would you be willing to resort to violence to oppose the new stricter legislation? What if, and I do mean if, Congress passed such measures, would you resort to violence then?

I do not think that such laws are Constitutional failing a Constitutional amendment. I believe that the USSC will strike such laws down. If I lived in Ca. New York, or Conn. I would move elsewhere. On a Federal level I would expect things to get nasty pretty quickly-probably before the USSC could rule-if any confiscation were involved. I would not meekly turn over or register my weapons in any case. I think most of the "...cold dead hands folks" mean exactly that.

I read that they are "confiscating" (stealing) the weapons of people based on the fact that they have had prescriptions for anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medications at one time or another in New York. I think such foolishness on a National level would start a Civil war. Hence my question.

You’re ‘read’ incorrectly.

Wrong. New York has in fact apologized but now they are claiming it was a matter of mistaken identity. Hopefully they are returning his guns and permit.

 

[9thIDdoc]

One, you are not competent to make those decisions.

No? If that were true we would still be British.

Two, try it and you will undoubtedly die, I would image.

So? It's a cause worth dying for. And I note that still no one has answered my question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I do not think that such laws are Constitutional failing a Constitutional amendment. I believe that the USSC will strike such laws down. If I lived in Ca. New York, or Conn. I would move elsewhere. On a Federal level I would expect things to get nasty pretty quickly-probably before the USSC could rule-if any confiscation were involved. I would not meekly turn over or register my weapons in any case. I think most of the "...cold dead hands folks" mean exactly that.

I read that they are "confiscating" (stealing) the weapons of people based on the fact that they have had prescriptions for anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medications at one time or another in New York. I think such foolishness on a National level would start a Civil war. Hence my question.

You’re ‘read’ incorrectly.

Wrong. New York has in fact apologized but now they are claiming it was a matter of mistaken identity. Hopefully they are returning his guns and permit.

No guns were ‘confiscated,’ in New York or anywhere else.

No private property can be taken by any government absent due process, which requires at the minimum an administrative hearing. See: US Constitution, Amendment Five.

And as such administrative hearings are part of the public record, you should have no trouble citing them.

But you and others on the right will ignore these facts because they don’t conform to your partisan agenda; you’ll continue to lie, and spin, and engage in new levels of hyperbole in an attempt to contrive a controversy where none exists, perceived by conservatives to be politically expedient.

 

[Intense]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

Why are you so obsessed with killing people?

Or you think that would ever do any good.

Our constitutional rights are what people think they are in the collective.

There are no "rights". A right implies that it can't be taken away, when in fact they can.

We don't have rights, we have privilages the rest of society allows us to have.

Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942." Guess what, they took away every right these folks had, and everyone cheered it at the time.

and somehow, I don't think the Japanese-Americans would have made anything better for themselves if they took up arms against the government at that point.

Hint, If your thoughts, words, or actions, come back and biter you in the ass, consider that it is part of the natural order, cause and effect. Bottom line. There are things people are willing to submit to, and there are things people are not willing to submit to some temporary, some conditional, some, never. Wrong action, wrong intent, will in time bite you in the ass, that's not an if, it's a when. In spite of the lies we tell each other, there is a balance, a reckoning. What language or culture is blind to injustice? In time you will appreciate the futility of herding people, about as effective as herding cats, with good reason. Just a thought.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Hint, If your thoughts, words, or actions, come back and biter you in the ass, consider that it is part of the natural order, cause and effect. Bottom line. There are things people are willing to submit to, and there are things people are not willing to submit to some temporary, some conditional, some, never. Wrong action, wrong intent, will in time bite you in the ass, that's not an if, it's a when. In spite of the lies we tell each other, there is a balance, a reckoning. What language or culture is blind to injustice? In time you will appreciate the futility of herding people, about as effective as herding cats, with good reason. Just a thought.

Humans like any other animals- including cats- tend to herd themselves.

Of course, it has nothing to do with what I said.

Rights are illusionary. If public opinion turns against the gun whacks, and it's starting to, the gun whacks are going to lose their guns. Period.

I personally don't have a problem with this.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You’re ‘read’ incorrectly.

Wrong. New York has in fact apologized but now they are claiming it was a matter of mistaken identity. Hopefully they are returning his guns and permit.

No guns were ‘confiscated,’ in New York or anywhere else.

No private property can be taken by any government absent due process, which requires at the minimum an administrative hearing. See: US Constitution, Amendment Five.

And as such administrative hearings are part of the public record, you should have no trouble citing them.

But you and others on the right will ignore these facts because they don’t conform to your partisan agenda; you’ll continue to lie, and spin, and engage in new levels of hyperbole in an attempt to contrive a controversy where none exists, perceived by conservatives to be politically expedient.

No, there was no hearing prior to the confiscation. And you are the one ignoring facts that don't fit your agenda.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Here ya go Jones-

On April 1st, Lewis received an official notice from the state which ordered him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. His permit to own a gun in New York was also suspended. According to Mr. Tresmond, Lewis was “humiliated” in front of family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and his employer because of the claims of the state.

Lewis then contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and they went together to the Amherst police department. Lewis was not surrendering his weapons voluntarily, but was complying with their order. This took place after a New York State Trooper by the name of Sgt. Jackson “aggressively pursuing” Lewis. This pursuit stopped once Mr. Lewis obtained the legal counsel of Tresmond Law.

Mr. Tresmond said that the local police were aware of the letter to Mr. Lewis because they had already been contacted by the State Police. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt was given to Mr. Lewis. However, they also requested he turn in his magazines since, “he wouldn’t be needing them anymore.” Tresmond’s assistant pointed out that no permit was needed to possess gun magazines, which made the officer they were dealing with nervous. She then referred them to another police officer.

After the guns were turned over, a request for a hearing was filed and Mr. Tresmond says that is still pending, but that Mr. Lewis is to have his guns returned to him. After all, Lewis is innocent until proven guilty.

In going to the New York State Supreme Court on Wednesday, Tresmond says that the County Clerk admits there was a “mistake” and that there was a “breech of Mr. Lewis’ privacy.”

Tresmond says that the state is guilty of a “gross violation of his due process rights.” They took his property first and then, if he so chose, he could demand a hearing at a later time. However, if he did not secure his firearms within one year, they were going to destroy his guns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

9th, tell us how, in simple and plain and clear words, how your rights are jeopardized.