Limiting rights because of the actions of the tiny minority

[Pheonixops]

Of course not.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I just ordered 10 tons for delivery this fall.

it's cool, you have the right to privacy and all that stuff

Don't forget, you can't buy all the Sudafed you want cuz you just might be, well, you know ... planning something.

BUT, you can buy huge ammo magazines and tear gas and assault weapons for the next time you go to the movies.

Good point, why cant I buy as much Sudafed as I want tho? Maybe I can trade my ammo for it.

Right to privacy and all that stuff

 

[M14 Shooter]

I dont fight strawmen.

You also dont have the intellectual honesty to adderess the question.
Get back to me when you do.

I've already answered this question in another thread started by Paulitician

Liar.
Coward.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...

...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?

If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.

I don't believe either are acceptable.

Not sure why -some- poeple find it so hard to answer a simple question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...

...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?

If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.

Law abiding citizens have rights to own guns and practice their religion. No one should even attempt to mess with either right.

Not sure why SOME people have such a hard time answering a simple question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...

...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?

If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.

I take it this is directed at people who wanted the so-called ground zero mosque banned, but who also oppose practically any sort of gun control.

I don;t see your answer to the question.
Please try again.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I voted that neither are acceptable. I didn't post about it because there really isn't much to say. Infringement of Constitutional rights is wrong, even if you think you're doing it for the 'right' reasons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I voted that neither are acceptable. I didn't post about it because there really isn't much to say. Infringement of Constitutional rights is wrong, even if you think you're doing it for the 'right' reasons.

Not sure why SOME people have such a hard time answering the question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just ordered 10 tons for delivery this fall.

it's cool, you have the right to privacy and all that stuff

Don't forget, you can't buy all the Sudafed you want cuz you just might be, well, you know ... planning something.

BUT, you can buy huge ammo magazines and tear gas and assault weapons for the next time you go to the movies.

Actually, you can buy all the Sudafed you want in exactly the same way he bought his guns and ammo: gradually, over time.

 

[Plasmaball]

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

So you hated the fear and panic when the airlines banned liquids, or you hate the fact AMC is banning dress up at the movies right?

those knee jerk reactions where a-ok, but this, how dare anyone question guns.

Private Business is free to set any reasonable and legal restriction they chose on those that CHOSE to se their services. The Government and gun grabbers have n o reasonable or legal right to infringe on protected rights. And the fact you think they do but only in certain cases proves just how stupid you are.

lol.....i figured you would punt.TSA is government sally....keep trying though.

 

[Plasmaball]

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

So you hated the fear and panic when the airlines banned liquids, or you hate the fact AMC is banning dress up at the movies right?

those knee jerk reactions where a-ok, but this, how dare anyone question guns.

Do you understand the difference between a private entity making decisions about what happens on their own property and the government making laws restricting Constitutional rights?

I think both decisions were misguided and silly, but within their rights and not a violation of mine. Gun control laws, on the other hand, are misguided, silly, AND a violation of my rights.

TSA is private? the patriot act which was rushed on 9-12 was a private affair?

no you hacks have no argument. im not evening calling for a ban, just a conversation....

 

[Charles_Main]

Just 1 law abiding Citizen with a Legal Concealed Weapon, could have saved many lives not only in this case but in so many others just like it. That fact is ignored by those who want to hurry up and take away our rights because a small amount of people abuse them.

The Fact is Criminals do not give a fuck if Guns are legal or not, Wack Jobs like this fucking scum bag in Colorado are going to kill one way or another. If not an AR 15 then a 30/30 or a Bomb. What are you going to do ban all guns? Then the only people who will have Weapons will be the Government, and those willing to Break the law and illegally have them.

Not the world I want to live in.

 

[Plasmaball]

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

So you hated the fear and panic when the airlines banned liquids, or you hate the fact AMC is banning dress up at the movies right?

those knee jerk reactions where a-ok, but this, how dare anyone question guns.

Uh we all hated teh bottles shit, it was liberals who loved it, all so they didnt have to profile, which is easier, smarter, and doesnt take everyone's freedom.

your of course lying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just 1 law abiding Citizen with a Legal Concealed Weapon, could have saved many lives not only in this case but in so many others just like it. That fact is ignored by those who want to hurry up and take away our rights because a small amount of people abuse them.

The Fact is Criminals do not give a fuck if Guns are legal or not, Wack Jobs like this fucking scum bag in Colorado are going to kill one way or another. If not an AR 15 then a 30/30 or a Bomb. What are you going to do ban all guns? Then the only people who will have Weapons will be the Government, and those willing to Break the law and illegally have them.

Not the world I want to live in.

Arson has also been a popular method with mass murderers in the past, and I believe I remember a female spree killer who drove her car into a crowd on the Las Vegas Strip on Thanksgiving.

The crazy and the evil will not be sane and good simply because we limit their choice of tools, and it's past time that we stopped ignoring these events for any purpose other than to gain leverage for our personal political agendas.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So you hated the fear and panic when the airlines banned liquids, or you hate the fact AMC is banning dress up at the movies right?

those knee jerk reactions where a-ok, but this, how dare anyone question guns.

Uh we all hated teh bottles shit, it was liberals who loved it, all so they didnt have to profile, which is easier, smarter, and doesnt take everyone's freedom.

your of course lying.

No you're full of shit. Did you want to profile muslims? I did and then we wouldnt need to search 4 year olds. This is a liberal policy

Will Profiling Make a Difference? - NYTimes.com

Terrorists don’t fit a profile and cannot be plucked out of crowds by computers. They’re European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American

Is he nuts ? so Tim McVeigh blew up a building so hey everyone does it. Liberals dont think muslims commit terrosim more than other people, Are they insane or just stupid? They have a couple of anecdotes, but after 40 years of muslims blowing up stuff in europe, america and the middle east, but lets not look at percentages, patterns and facts.

 

[hortysir]

So you hated the fear and panic when the airlines banned liquids, or you hate the fact AMC is banning dress up at the movies right?

those knee jerk reactions where a-ok, but this, how dare anyone question guns.

Do you understand the difference between a private entity making decisions about what happens on their own property and the government making laws restricting Constitutional rights?

I think both decisions were misguided and silly, but within their rights and not a violation of mine. Gun control laws, on the other hand, are misguided, silly, AND a violation of my rights.

TSA is private? the patriot act which was rushed on 9-12 was a private affair?

no you hacks have no argument. im not evening calling for a ban, just a conversation....

9-12??

Seriously?

Exaggerate much?

 

[Plasmaball]

Uh we all hated teh bottles shit, it was liberals who loved it, all so they didnt have to profile, which is easier, smarter, and doesnt take everyone's freedom.

your of course lying.

No you're full of shit. Did you want to profile muslims? I did and then we wouldnt need to search 4 year olds. This is a liberal policy

Will Profiling Make a Difference? - NYTimes.com

Terrorists don’t fit a profile and cannot be plucked out of crowds by computers. They’re European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American

Is he nuts ? so Tim McVeigh blew up a building so hey everyone does it. Liberals dont think muslims commit terrosim more than other people, Are they insane or just stupid? They have a couple of anecdotes, but after 40 years of muslims blowing up stuff in europe, america and the middle east, but lets not look at percentages, patterns and facts.

no i remember a lot of rightwingers stating that they didnt mind giving up things for the sake of security, Freedom, and what not...

I was there, stop trying to rewrite history fuckstick.

 

[Plasmaball]

Do you understand the difference between a private entity making decisions about what happens on their own property and the government making laws restricting Constitutional rights?

I think both decisions were misguided and silly, but within their rights and not a violation of mine. Gun control laws, on the other hand, are misguided, silly, AND a violation of my rights.

TSA is private? the patriot act which was rushed on 9-12 was a private affair?

no you hacks have no argument. im not evening calling for a ban, just a conversation....

9-12??

Seriously?

Exaggerate much?

oct.26th....oh noes. Could be worse, could be calling Obama a limp wristed tyrant.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

I find it it remarkable that NO ONE said they believe it is OK to limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, given the large number of pro-gun control people on this board.

 

[Navy1960]

Interesting question posed by the OP, the short answer is this, using a crisis or any crisis for that matter to limit constitutional rights be it the 2nd Amendment or any other run afoul of the very foundations of this nation. Having said this, to suggest that these rights are unlimited rights are not subject to limitation through constitutional or congressional means is also wrong. Take the 2nd Amendment for example, even the most conservative Justice , Justice Scalia has said that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right. Can someone for example run out and purchase a CIWS for home defense ? No because that weapon cannot be purchased by civilians and is highly regulated as are a number of weapons including fully automatic weapons. The point here is though, the OP asked if this crisis should be used as an excuse to limit rights given in the constitution and the answer is no, no crisis should, and the 2nd Amendment is there for the protection of the people more than anything else and should be seen that way. In a crisis like this, the main focus should be on the victims and offering our thoughts and prayers to them, and then if like me you might want to wish the Suspect a short walk to meet his maker. Then perhaps afterwards our nation can in a calm manner actually focus on common sense laws that respect the constitution and at the same time apply common sense .