Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kaz, Sep 20, 2013.

  1. KissMy
    Offline

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    12,804
    Thanks Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,265
    Sorry, but “well-regulated” doesn't mean you have a right until it's removed by a court!

    There is absolutely no way "a well regulated militia" means emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained get guns unless a court says they can't. The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia.

    "A well regulated Militia” means well functioning mind, well trained, well functioning controlled unit. “well-regulated” can also means you must earn the right!

    If your parent or a neighbor tells the FBI that you are a terrorist & they put you on a no fly list & terror watch list, “well-regulated” regulations can definitely take away your guns, drivers license & vehicles.

    “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" ... “A well-regulated” are the first & most important words of the second amendment. They are the heart that all the other words of the second amendment center around.
     
  2. Windship
    Offline

    Windship VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    3,096
    Thanks Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +670
    What if there was a war and only one side had guns? Who would win? The criminal would.
     
  3. KissMy
    Offline

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    12,804
    Thanks Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,265
    That's why I don't care to much for tight regulation that force you to earn the rights, pay fees, carry insurance & permits. We don't need to turn good CCW people into criminals because their papers weren't in order.

    There should only be restrictions placed on people on terror list, no-fly list, criminals, emotionally unstable, mental defectives, etc.

    Come January 1, 2017 here in Missouri we can carry a concealed firearm for self-defense without a permit from the government. I love that. I just want a online list of people to watch out for.
     
  4. owebo
    Offline

    owebo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Messages:
    18,689
    Thanks Received:
    1,984
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Washigton, DC
    Ratings:
    +14,618
    So you don't want democrats to have guns....I like that idea.....
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Norman
    Offline

    Norman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    9,871
    Thanks Received:
    1,653
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,345
    Criminals need to be armed so that they can defend themselves against the misogynist cops.
     
  6. KissMy
    Offline

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    12,804
    Thanks Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,265
    No! - I don't want unstable people to have guns. They will kill you before an armed robber will.

    Just last week my best friend was highway robbed at gunpoint by an armed robber. He even took a swing at the robber with the gun before eventually handing over $100. He did not get shot.
     
  7. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    46,299
    Thanks Received:
    4,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +16,439
    Well, only if you believe in silly things like the fifth amendment where your rights can only be deprived with due process of law

    That all is reasonable. So if that's the case, you should be able to provide due process and prove it in a court of law. If it's your opinion, that's not good enough

    What the fuck? So they put in the Constitution that you have that right. Well, if you earn it. Government can't infringe on your right to arms, they just have to give it to you if you "earn it." Think about that

    Drivers licenses are not in the Constitution. You have no "right" to drive on government roads. Your guns are protected by the 2nd and 5th amendments however and your vehicles by the 5th amendment

    Try reading the second amendment again:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Try overcoming your government education and reading it more carefully. Notice that "well regulated militia" is offered as an explanation, not a condition. It is saying because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, your right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, it does not say if you have a well regulated militia, you right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    And again , think about what you are saying. They put in the Bill of Right a "right" that can be granted or denied at the whim of government? You have no judicial protection for? Well, their neighbor said blah, so government took it away? No court? Well, you didn't "earn" it as deemed by government? Seriously, that's what you think?

    The Bill of Rights says all powers not granted to the government are reserved by the States or the people. Speech, press, religion, due process, warrants. Oh, let's chuck in one we don't really mean though and make it #2. Yeah ...
     
  8. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    46,299
    Thanks Received:
    4,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +16,439
    There are a lot of differences between the US and Europe. To just conclude that it's gun laws is so completely and utterly shallow. It's so you. Why don't you answer my OP question?
     
  9. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    46,299
    Thanks Received:
    4,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +16,439
    No it isn't, wow, the intellectual horsepower to come up with that.

    So all background checks do is have the gun seller say no, can't let you buy the gun. There is no consequence. So the criminals can go from shop to shop, seller to seller until they get a yes. So how is that not an infringement on anyone but law abiding citizens?

    And you still have no answer to the OP question. Right now, drug dealers are streaming in drugs. What prevents them from putting guns in their drug shipments and selling those to criminals? You still oppose security on our southern border, you undercut your own argment
     
  10. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    46,299
    Thanks Received:
    4,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +16,439
    How many of those crimes for profit were committed by legal guns? Mostly not. Again showing you're only infringing on the rights of honest citizens, and we want the guns to protect ourselves.

    What a stupid plan. You see, it's a bad situation if you have a gun to protect yourself. I'm going to help you by taking away your gun so that only the criminal has one. You're welcome.

    Gee, thanks
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content