If you don't want guns don't buy them?

[thereisnospoon]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

I am trying to read between the lines here.
Tell ya what....Just spell out in plain English a list of criteria by which you believe gun ownership should be permitted.

 

[Contumacious]

THERE CAN NOT BE VALID REGULATION BY FEDGOV - ANY REGULATION IS A BOLD FACE USURPATION



Page 92 U. S. 553


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln,11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

 

[The Rabbi]

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Hint: We dont give a shit what "the majority" of the country wants. And thats wrong anyway. Clearly the majority does not want gun control because gun control has been a loser at the ballot for 20 years.

Delusional twit. But at least you were semi honest when you said wackos like you don't care what the majority of the country wants.

But I see why an ignorant bully like you would need a gun to feel like a man.

Yawn.
Same old shit. When called on it you deflect to insults and snark. Because you've got nothing.

stop projecting loony toon.

do you think you're going to bully me? you couldn't bully a paper bag, troll. in real life, you'd just get your face punched in.

Interesting that you perceive my unmasking of you as "bullying." Your fantasies of violence are disturbing. Perhaps you need help?

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats funny. You have proven many times you have no idea what the legal system is or what being a lawyer is about. Im more inclined to think RDean is a lawyer than you.

that's funny coming from a braindead angry misogynist wingnut who hates this country.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Typical regressive response, our current laws are so complex they can't be properly enforced and your response is more laws, more complexity, then when that doesn't work you'll go for bans. The rational response would be arguing for better enforcement of current laws, there are already enough, maybe too many, to address it all.

dude, the regressives are you idiots who want to bring women and blacks and gays back to the 1950's and turn this country back into the wild west words have meanings, you should really learn those meanings. otherwise, you're just a putz

Who wants to turn women and blacks to the 1950s? That would be progressives. They think women are too delicate to hear disturbing things. They think blacks need "safe spaces", and "teachers and mentors who look like them." IN the 1950s that was called "segregation."

 

[Valerie]

Interesting that you perceive my unmasking of you as "bullying." Your fantasies of violence are disturbing. Perhaps you need help?

@ the unmasking of jillian by the angry faux rabbi.. cuckoooooo

 

[Valerie]

Interesting that you perceive my unmasking of you as "bullying."

Your fantasies of violence are disturbing. Perhaps you need help?

your history for violent fantasies has long ago gone down on your permanent record, creep.

 

[Valerie]

Republicans in Congress made it clear Thursday that they will not be moving quickly to bring up new gun control legislation in the wake of Wednesday's shootings in San Bernardino, Calif.

Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday there are still too many unknowns..

Republicans say no to new gun control legislation after San Bernardino

 

[jillian]

btw, two of the weapons used in yesterday's mass shooting (of which we have had more this year than there are days in the year) were purchased legally.

How many of the killings were legal?

the killings? none. or they wouldn't be considered mass shootings..

is that really a serious question?

or is it the meth talking?

 

[jillian]

Interesting that you perceive my unmasking of you as "bullying."

Your fantasies of violence are disturbing. Perhaps you need help?

your history for violent fantasies has long ago gone down on your permanent record, creep.

what his history is ... is trolling and lying about people because it makes him feel like less of a failure.

 

[jillian]

that's funny coming from a braindead angry misogynist wingnut who hates this country.

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Hint: We dont give a shit what "the majority" of the country wants. And thats wrong anyway. Clearly the majority does not want gun control because gun control has been a loser at the ballot for 20 years.

Delusional twit. But at least you were semi honest when you said wackos like you don't care what the majority of the country wants.

But I see why an ignorant bully like you would need a gun to feel like a man.

Yawn.
Same old shit. When called on it you deflect to insults and snark. Because you've got nothing.

poor baby... dishes out the insults and cries into his pillow when it comes back at him.

poor pathetic little troll...

do you actually work? cause you're here all day long, nutter.

 

[SwimExpert]

the killings? none. or they wouldn't be considered mass shootings.

So, legal prohibitions don't stop stop violent criminals from being violent criminals, do they?

is that really a serious question?

or is it the meth talking?

Clearly that was not a serious question. But I'm starting to wonder why I waste my time. Yes, there's alot of absurdity that gets flung around here. I give what people are worth. When people around here demonstrate they can have an intelligent and rational debate I'm all to happy to give them one. I save the guerrilla tactics for the ones who think from their medulla. I've never not given you a serious question. But if meth is what I get out of that interaction I should probably reevaluate my approach.

 

[jillian]

the killings? none. or they wouldn't be considered mass shootings.

So, legal prohibitions don't stop stop violent criminals from being violent criminals, do they?

is that really a serious question?

or is it the meth talking?

Clearly that was not a serious question. But I'm starting to wonder why I waste my time. Yes, there's alot of absurdity that gets flung around here. I give what people are worth. When people around here demonstrate they can have an intelligent and rational debate I'm all to happy to give them one. I save the guerrilla tactics for the ones who think from their medulla. I've never not given you a serious question. But if meth is what I get out of that interaction I should probably reevaluate my approach.

so nothing should be illegal then since no laws stop anything. that what you're saying?

as for your attempt at sarcasm. sorry, you can't "hear" sarcasm in posts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Seems to me, it's you who is bashing the majority of the country.

aside from the fact I find defending the loser incomprehensible, i'm not bashing anyone. i'm responding to being bashed.

as to our particular conversation, the majority of this country wants guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters and we're tired of hearing NRA talking points about how regulation is inappropriate. there is nothing in heller or any other case or in the constitution that says you can't regulate gun ownership. period.

Hint: We dont give a shit what "the majority" of the country wants. And thats wrong anyway. Clearly the majority does not want gun control because gun control has been a loser at the ballot for 20 years.

Delusional twit. But at least you were semi honest when you said wackos like you don't care what the majority of the country wants.

But I see why an ignorant bully like you would need a gun to feel like a man.

Yawn.
Same old shit. When called on it you deflect to insults and snark. Because you've got nothing.

poor baby... dishes out the insults and cries into his pillow when it comes back at him.

poor pathetic little troll...

do you actually work? cause you're here all day long, nutter.

Cry into my pillow? You are delusional. You probably think you're a lawyer or something too.

 

[The Rabbi]

the killings? none. or they wouldn't be considered mass shootings.

So, legal prohibitions don't stop stop violent criminals from being violent criminals, do they?

is that really a serious question?

or is it the meth talking?

Clearly that was not a serious question. But I'm starting to wonder why I waste my time. Yes, there's alot of absurdity that gets flung around here. I give what people are worth. When people around here demonstrate they can have an intelligent and rational debate I'm all to happy to give them one. I save the guerrilla tactics for the ones who think from their medulla. I've never not given you a serious question. But if meth is what I get out of that interaction I should probably reevaluate my approach.

so nothing should be illegal then since no laws stop anything. that what you're saying?

as for your attempt at sarcasm. sorry, you can't "hear" sarcasm in posts.

Many laws arent designed to stop anything. They are designed to punish the wrong doer after the fact. All laws that are malum in se are so designed.
Being a lawyer you surely know the difference, right? Oh, wait.

 

[SwimExpert]

so nothing should be illegal then since no laws stop anything. that what you're saying?

No, that would actually be a straw man. I never said anything close to that. I don't view the purpose of laws in society in one dimensional. The deterrence value of laws is only useful when individuals value compliance more than they value committing the criminal act. To that end, punishments exist for the commission of crimes. Without laws, we cannot punish criminal behavior. We cannot act to remove dangerous criminals from society.

Some individuals don't value law abiding behavior regardless of the prescribed punishments. The highest crime in society is murder, and it comes with the most severe punishments. In many places the punishment for murder is death. Yet, we know that the death penalty is itself a poor deterrent to murder. Seeing as the harshest of penalties is little to deterrent murder, how can you expect comparatively petty punishments for violating gun control laws to be any deterrent to anyone, other than those who already value not being a criminal?

as for your attempt at sarcasm. sorry, you can't "hear" sarcasm in posts.

The problem seems to be that you do hear sarcasm in my posts, when none is there.

 

[Dana7360]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

It is illegal for felons, persons convicted of spousal abuse and those declared mentally unstable to posses guns.

What is your suggestion as to how to keep these people from acquiring a firearm?

i'd start with making sure the laws are unform across the country so runners can't bring weapons from south Carolina into new York.

i'd make sure the gunshow loophole is closes, as well as prohibiting transfers between private citizens without background checks and registration.

even scalia said only a total ban is impermissible and left the door open for appropriate regulation.

but you tell me, how do you keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them? (without throwing up your hands and saying only criminals will disobey the law... because that's true about laws against murder, too, it doesn't mean we don't legislate against murder).

There is no loop hole. Any licensed dealer selling at a Gun show MUST do a background check. Only Bubba and his cousin don't and there are not that many Bubba's that can afford a 20 to 40 dollar table at a gun show to sell grandpas old shootin iron.

Not everyone at gun show is a licensed dealer.

There are gun sales taking place at those shows that don't get a background check in most states.

I know my state closed that loophole last year. No more gun sales without background checks at gun shows and between private people.

That law is imposed on everyone not just licensed dealers.

Which is how it should be.

Now if we can only get republicans to pass a law that keeps guns from terrorists we will be on our way to a more safer society.

 

[The Rabbi]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

It is illegal for felons, persons convicted of spousal abuse and those declared mentally unstable to posses guns.

What is your suggestion as to how to keep these people from acquiring a firearm?

i'd start with making sure the laws are unform across the country so runners can't bring weapons from south Carolina into new York.

i'd make sure the gunshow loophole is closes, as well as prohibiting transfers between private citizens without background checks and registration.

even scalia said only a total ban is impermissible and left the door open for appropriate regulation.

but you tell me, how do you keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them? (without throwing up your hands and saying only criminals will disobey the law... because that's true about laws against murder, too, it doesn't mean we don't legislate against murder).

There is no loop hole. Any licensed dealer selling at a Gun show MUST do a background check. Only Bubba and his cousin don't and there are not that many Bubba's that can afford a 20 to 40 dollar table at a gun show to sell grandpas old shootin iron.

Not everyone at gun show is a licensed dealer.

There are gun sales taking place at those shows that don't get a background check in most states.

I know my state closed that loophole last year. No more gun sales without background checks at gun shows and between private people.

That law is imposed on everyone not just licensed dealers.

Which is how it should be.

Now if we can only get republicans to pass a law that keeps guns from terrorists we will be on our way to a more safer society.

Is your state California? Because they also imposed that rule. We see how well it worked out in San Bernadino.
How do you propose to pass a law preventing terrorists from getting guns? You can't prevent career petty criminals from getting guns already.

 

[Dana7360]

Most of these mass shootings are done by leftists...

Sanity And socialism cannot coexist...

Yet we see even in this thread right wingers saying that liberals are going to take their guns.

How can you then turn around and say most mass shootings are done my leftists if they hate guns and want to take them from everyone?

You pulled that statement out of your butt with no proof at all.

Which is typical of a right wing conservative like you.

 

[Rustic]

Skull Pilot said "If you don't want a gun don't buy one" yet that is so beside the point

first, who says there aren't guns in my home?

second, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them... the nutters, the criminals, the spouse abusers, pedophiles...


most normal people understand the need to restrict gun ownership in those cases.

It is illegal for felons, persons convicted of spousal abuse and those declared mentally unstable to posses guns.

What is your suggestion as to how to keep these people from acquiring a firearm?

i'd start with making sure the laws are unform across the country so runners can't bring weapons from south Carolina into new York.

i'd make sure the gunshow loophole is closes, as well as prohibiting transfers between private citizens without background checks and registration.

even scalia said only a total ban is impermissible and left the door open for appropriate regulation.

but you tell me, how do you keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them? (without throwing up your hands and saying only criminals will disobey the law... because that's true about laws against murder, too, it doesn't mean we don't legislate against murder).

There is no loop hole. Any licensed dealer selling at a Gun show MUST do a background check. Only Bubba and his cousin don't and there are not that many Bubba's that can afford a 20 to 40 dollar table at a gun show to sell grandpas old shootin iron.

Not everyone at gun show is a licensed dealer.

There are gun sales taking place at those shows that don't get a background check in most states.

I know my state closed that loophole last year. No more gun sales without background checks at gun shows and between private people.

That law is imposed on everyone not just licensed dealers.

Which is how it should be.

Now if we can only get republicans to pass a law that keeps guns from terrorists we will be on our way to a more safer society.

More laws will never help...

 

[The Rabbi]

Most of these mass shootings are done by leftists...

Sanity And socialism cannot coexist...

Yet we see even in this thread right wingers saying that liberals are going to take their guns.

How can you then turn around and say most mass shootings are done my leftists if they hate guns and want to take them from everyone?

You pulled that statement out of your butt with no proof at all.

Which is typical of a right wing conservative like you.

First off we have many statements by left wing politicians and pundits saying things like "repeal the 2A" and "turn them all in." So it's hardly paranoia.
Second it is simply fact that most of the notorious shootings were done by leftists. Obviously the leftists shooting and the leftists banning arent the same people.