Is there anyone who still believes in gun control?

[M14 Shooter]

it doesn't "violate the constitution" to have background checks. but thanks for proving my point.

It does - unless, of course, you can show the compelling state interest to that effect (as well as a few other things you won't understand).
Given that you don't understand what even -that- means, you will have a tough time with that illustration.

As for your point - I see you whizzed right past trying to support your claim.
Given your vast history of this, it is no surprise.

moron

Liar.

and, unlike you, i don't lie.

False. You have lied about your education and credentials.
Nothing you have ever posted would lead anyone to believe that you have made it past 8th grade, much less earned a JD.

 

[G.T.]

Of course limits and controls are good.

I don't want any random moron to be able to own a shoulder-missile.

I think waiting periods are good, and I think background checks are good because they're flat out logical.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course limits and controls are good.
I don't want any random moron to be able to own a shoulder-missile.

Psst...
The issue is GUN control.

I think waiting periods are good, and I think background checks are good because they're flat out logical.

Both violate the constitution.
-Waiting periods create a precondition to the right not inherent to that right, and thus are an infringement.
-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, whic, of course, violates the constitutuion.

 

[G.T.]

Of course limits and controls are good.
I don't want any random moron to be able to own a shoulder-missile.

Psst...
The issue is GUN control.

I think waiting periods are good, and I think background checks are good because they're flat out logical.

Both violate the constitution.
-Waiting periods create a precondition to the right not inherent to that right, and thus are an infringement.
-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, whic, of course, violates the constitutuion.

I don't give a fuck what it violates. Not doing so violates intelligence.

 

[jillian]

False. You have lied about your education and credentials.
Nothing you have ever posted would lead anyone to believe that you have made it past 8th grade, much less earned a JD.

you know what i always find interesting?

that it's always the people with the lowest IQ's and least education (like yourself) who would ever question my bona fides.

like i've said, repeatedly, i don't need to be validated by a subliterate wackjob on a messageboard like you.

maybe that GED would do you some good about now? I would encourage you in trying to seek an education.

 

[westwall]

Of course limits and controls are good.
I don't want any random moron to be able to own a shoulder-missile.

Psst...
The issue is GUN control.

I think waiting periods are good, and I think background checks are good because they're flat out logical.

Both violate the constitution.
-Waiting periods create a precondition to the right not inherent to that right, and thus are an infringement.
-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, whic, of course, violates the constitutuion.

I don't support waiting periods at all. They do nothing to prevent crime (other than make it easier for the ex boyfriend/husband to kill the estranged wife while she waits for the requisite time period to be able to defend herself.

However, background checks have a place. No one with a brain wants a convicted felon or person deemed mentally incompetent to have a weapon. No one. The first line of defence for that is a background check. The problem is, at least in CA if a felon attempts to buy a weapon nothing happens to them. Here in NV I know of two knuckleheads who were arrested and sent back to prison for trying to buy a pistol from a gun store.

Bad people shouldn't have weapons, ever. Good people should be able to have whatever they want.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course limits and controls are good.
I don't want any random moron to be able to own a shoulder-missile.

Psst...
The issue is GUN control.

I think waiting periods are good, and I think background checks are good because they're flat out logical.

Both violate the constitution.
-Waiting periods create a precondition to the right not inherent to that right, and thus are an infringement.
-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, whic, of course, violates the constitutuion.

I don't give a fuck what it violates. Not doing so violates intelligence.

I'm sure that when your ox is gored, you'll think otherwise.
:roll:

Fact of the matter is, the Constitution trumps what -you- consider a good idea.

 

[G.T.]

Psst...
The issue is GUN control.


Both violate the constitution.
-Waiting periods create a precondition to the right not inherent to that right, and thus are an infringement.
-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, whic, of course, violates the constitutuion.

I don't give a fuck what it violates. Not doing so violates intelligence.

I'm sure that when your ox is gored, you'll think otherwise.
:roll:

Fact of the matter is, the Constitution trumps what -you- consider a good idea.

Umm, no it doesn't, because we have waiting periods and background checks.

My common sense trumped what you say is the Constitution, in real life practice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

False. You have lied about your education and credentials.
Nothing you have ever posted would lead anyone to believe that you have made it past 8th grade, much less earned a JD.

you know what i always find interesting?

The lint between your toes. I understand you find it especially tasty as well.

that it's always the people with the lowest IQ's and least education (like yourself) who would ever question my bona fides.

There's no "question" about it - you're lying.

like i've said, repeatedly, i don't need to be validated by a subliterate wackjob on a messageboard like you.

And yet you feel the need to lie about your education and credentials in an attempt to put some weight behind your grade-school arguments and acute inability to support a premise.
Quite the dichotomy there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't give a fuck what it violates. Not doing so violates intelligence.

I'm sure that when your ox is gored, you'll think otherwise.
:roll:

Fact of the matter is, the Constitution trumps what -you- consider a good idea.

Umm, no it doesn't, because we have waiting periods and background checks.

Yes. And?
This negates my argument... how?

Oh wait - do you believe that if the government does something, it must be legal for it to do so?

 

[G.T.]

I'm sure that when your ox is gored, you'll think otherwise.
:roll:

Fact of the matter is, the Constitution trumps what -you- consider a good idea.

Umm, no it doesn't, because we have waiting periods and background checks.

Yes. And?
This negates my argument... how?

Oh wait - do you believe that if the government does something, it must be legal for it to do so?

No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.

I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.

 

[westwall]

Umm, no it doesn't, because we have waiting periods and background checks.

Yes. And?
This negates my argument... how?

Oh wait - do you believe that if the government does something, it must be legal for it to do so?

No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.

I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.

I'm with you on background checks but waiting periods only allow women to be killed by their ex's. You should let those go. They don't halt crime and in fact make crime easier.

 

[G.T.]

Yes. And?
This negates my argument... how?

Oh wait - do you believe that if the government does something, it must be legal for it to do so?

No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.

I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.

I'm with you on background checks but waiting periods only allow women to be killed by their ex's. You should let those go. They don't halt crime and in fact make crime easier.

Conversely, they allow hot headed exes to johnny on the spot in the heat of the moment buy pull shoot.



I think that people who have a philosophy of having a gun for protection don't generally wait until it's too late to have one and if they do, then they have their own philosophy to blame.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Umm, no it doesn't, because we have waiting periods and background checks.

Yes. And?
This negates my argument... how?

Oh wait - do you believe that if the government does something, it must be legal for it to do so?

No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.

I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.

Yes - wanton violations of the law of the land are just fine - so long as it is 'common sense' to do so.

 

[G.T.]

Yes. And?
This negates my argument... how?

Oh wait - do you believe that if the government does something, it must be legal for it to do so?

No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.

I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.

Yes - wanton violations of the law of the land are just fine - so long as it is 'common sense' to do so.

Well, yea. Except, as it stands, it's not a violation of the law since, you know, it's not been constitutionally challenged and won, in court so............sounds to me like *you're* the one who prefers the Legal violation as it stands, today, here and now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. And?
This negates my argument... how?

Oh wait - do you believe that if the government does something, it must be legal for it to do so?

No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.

I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.

I'm with you on background checks but waiting periods only allow women to be killed by their ex's. You should let those go. They don't halt crime and in fact make crime easier.

Never mind that most waiting periods apply only to handguns, and people who are likely to shoot another person in such a situation are likely to already have a gun.

There's no compelling state interest to force people to wait any number of days before they can take delivery on a gun.

 

[westwall]

No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.

I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.

I'm with you on background checks but waiting periods only allow women to be killed by their ex's. You should let those go. They don't halt crime and in fact make crime easier.

Conversely, they allow hot headed exes to johnny on the spot in the heat of the moment buy pull shoot.



I think that people who have a philosophy of having a gun for protection don't generally wait until it's too late to have one and if they do, then they have their own philosophy to blame.

Hot headed Johnny's already have the weapons so no, that is not an issue. Waiting periods only harm the undefended. There is tons of evidence that shows the harm they do. I can count on my fingers the number of times someone has bought a weapon and immediatly used it. There are FAR more cases of the other however.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.

I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.

Yes - wanton violations of the law of the land are just fine - so long as it is 'common sense' to do so.

Well, yea. Except, as it stands, it's not a violation of the law since, you know, it's not been constitutionally challenged and won, in court so

Not how it works.

The right to arms is a fundamental right, protected specifically by the constitution - restrictions on such rghts are presumed unconstitutional until shown otherwise.

As such, for a restriction to pass, the state has to show it has a compelling interest to restrict the right, and that said restriction is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest

So, unless you can show that interest, there's no way to argue the limits you support pass muster.


Once Jillan googles all this, she'll try to argue otherwise; she'll succeed in only showng that while she can copy/paste impressive-sounding words, she has no means to comprehend them.

 

[G.T.]

I'm with you on background checks but waiting periods only allow women to be killed by their ex's. You should let those go. They don't halt crime and in fact make crime easier.

Conversely, they allow hot headed exes to johnny on the spot in the heat of the moment buy pull shoot.



I think that people who have a philosophy of having a gun for protection don't generally wait until it's too late to have one and if they do, then they have their own philosophy to blame.

Hot headed Johnny's already have the weapons so no, that is not an issue. Waiting periods only harm the undefended. There is tons of evidence that shows the harm they do. I can count on my fingers the number of times someone has bought a weapon and immediatly used it. There are FAR more cases of the other however.

I still put the responsibility not on the Law, but on those who view guns as adequate protection, but waiting around for a rainy day to get one. Life is a one-timer. Procrastinating your protection?> Asinine.

 

[G.T.]

Yes - wanton violations of the law of the land are just fine - so long as it is 'common sense' to do so.

Well, yea. Except, as it stands, it's not a violation of the law since, you know, it's not been constitutionally challenged and won, in court so

Not how it works.

The right to arms is a fundamental right, protected specifically by the constitution - restrictions on such rghts are presumed unconstitutional until shown otherwise.

As such, for a restriction to pass, the state has to show it has a compelling interest to restrict the right, and that said restriction is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest

So, unless you can show that interest, there's no way to argue the limits you support pass muster.


Once Jillan googles all this, she'll try to argue otherwise; she'll succeed in only showng that while she can copy/paste impressive-sounding words, she has no means to comprehend them.

Nobody needs to google, what you've presented is exactly what did *not* happen, in real life.

So, have fun taking it to the Supreme.