Obama's plan for gun control...

[Syphon]

I see you've given up on trying to argue against the idea that licensing, registration and background checks are infringements.
Good to see you know when to cut your losses and run.


I also see you don't understand the fundamental difference between causation and correlation. Google is your friend.

BTW... according to the CDC, the number is 10.3/100k.
WONDER Message

you never answered me dumbshit.

Yawn. Post 141.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/212154-obamas-plan-for-gun-control-10.html#post4935762

now address the rest of my argument. tell me how you can own tanks, automatic weapons, RPG's and AT4's

You'll need to first address mine, which you have, as of yet, utterly failed to do.
I'm -more- than interested in seeing your counter, and making the case for the compelling state interest.

a background check is meant to keep the guns out of the hands of those who have had their rights taken away, not to keep guns away from law abiding citizens. what you are in essence is promoting a society in which there is no gun control, which will lead to a higher instance of gun related deaths. you are not impeding ones ability to own a gun, you are verify the legality of actually owning a gun. unfortunately idiots like yourself can not comprehend the difference. you have a right to vote, but now the GOP wants to instill voter ID. this is an infringement on out rights by your definition of infringement. we have a right states are trying to pass person hood law to supersede the right to privacy, by your definition of infringement, this is a violation of women's rights. the right wants to instill prayer in school using my tax dollars, but i dont believe in your religion, by your definition this is a violation of my right or religion (or lack of religion)

now answer my questions.

 

[Liberty]

you never answered me dumbshit.

yawn. Post 141.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/212154-obamas-plan-for-gun-control-10.html#post4935762

now address the rest of my argument. Tell me how you can own tanks, automatic weapons, rpg's and at4's

you'll need to first address mine, which you have, as of yet, utterly failed to do.
I'm -more- than interested in seeing your counter, and making the case for the compelling state interest.

a background check is meant to keep the guns out of the hands of those who have had their rights taken away, not to keep guns away from law abiding citizens. What you are in essence is promoting a society in which there is no gun control, which will lead to a higher instance of gun related deaths. You are not impeding ones ability to own a gun, you are verify the legality of actually owning a gun. Unfortunately idiots like yourself can not comprehend the difference. You have a right to vote, but now the gop wants to instill voter id. This is an infringement on out rights by your definition of infringement. We have a right states are trying to pass person hood law to supersede the right to privacy, by your definition of infringement, this is a violation of women's rights. The right wants to instill prayer in school using my tax dollars, but i dont believe in your religion, by your definition this is a violation of my right or religion (or lack of religion)

now answer my questions.

hey einstein!

Criminals will get weapons if they want to regardless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All you advocate is infringing the rights of those who abide by the law.
Criminals WILL ALWAYS find a way to procure a weapon, background check or not! Ever hear of the black market? Ever hear of gangs? Shit...ever hear of MEXICO?
Come on man use your fucking brain for once in your life.

 

[wjmacguffin]

The prohibition of falsely yelling fire in a theater is based in the idea that doing so wrongfully puts people in imminent danger of being harmed.

Indeed, most restrictions on the right to free speech -- the prohibition of libel/slander, the isue of 'fighting words' or inciting a riot - are all based on the ide that you do not have the right to use speech that directly unjures others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

The constitutionality of ALL gun control laws should be judge by that standard - if your act does not cause actual harm or place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, then a limitation on that act violates the Constitution.

Syphon, if you need me to dumb this down so you can understand it, let me know.

Agreed, but the devil is in the details. Who gets to decide what constitutes "clear, present and immediate danger"?

Just follow 1st amendment examples and apply them in context.

Also, does it really need to be immediate if it's likely?

Yep. Clear, present, immediate.
Else, you could have your speech limited today for something that might happen next week.

So would carrying a loaded gun into a crowded theater count as immediate? Or does someone need to shoot the gun before it becomes dangerous? In the spectrum of owning a gun to shooting at people, where does one draw the line?

 

[Nosmo King]

Point it out and we will tear it up.

Don't tear it up, follow it! "A well-regulated militia..."

if the government attacks its own people then we become the militia to defend our liberty. that is the point... notice the "...being necessary for the security of a FREE State..." It is not just to defend from foreign invaders. If this were the case it would say "being necessary for the security of the united states" instead. See the difference?

In 1789 people were more evenly matched against the power of the state. They used the same weapons, except for artillery and naval forces. Try facing down an F-18 with your skeet gun.

The notion of armed resistance against the American military industrial complex is an academic notion at best. In reality, you and I would be rotting corpses and not heroes.

 

[AmberR108]

I don't fantasize about it either I don't even think about it. You react the way you have been trained to defend yourself.

I have an Official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock. I use it to hunt Grizzly Bears in the back yard......

What do you have?

I don't have any guns

I can't tell if you actually do own guns or if you being completely honest and actually don't...

Well played.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

he's a troll - expect no less.

I'm not a troll. I'm a very reluctant gun owner.

I know how it must thrill you to own guns. That's okay. Just don't use them irresponsibly.

I take the responsibility of gun ownership very seriously. It was a very great decision on my part to introduce the hazard of a gun to my household. I only wish it was taken as seriously by others.

Reluctant? You are full of bull shit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have an Official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock. I use it to hunt Grizzly Bears in the back yard......

What do you have?

I don't have any guns

I can't tell if you actually do own guns or if you being completely honest and actually don't...

Well played.

I is scared of them there guns.

 

[Liberty]

Don't tear it up, follow it! "A well-regulated militia..."

if the government attacks its own people then we become the militia to defend our liberty. that is the point... notice the "...being necessary for the security of a FREE State..." It is not just to defend from foreign invaders. If this were the case it would say "being necessary for the security of the united states" instead. See the difference?

In 1789 people were more evenly matched against the power of the state. They used the same weapons, except for artillery and naval forces. Try facing down an F-18 with your skeet gun.

The notion of armed resistance against the American military industrial complex is an academic notion at best. In reality, you and I would be rotting corpses and not heroes.

So...we would have to join together...that's what a militia is, dumbass.
Also, you sound an awful lot like a British sympathizer in 1776. Look how well it turned out for them.

 

[wjmacguffin]

yawn. Post 141.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/212154-obamas-plan-for-gun-control-10.html#post4935762


you'll need to first address mine, which you have, as of yet, utterly failed to do.
I'm -more- than interested in seeing your counter, and making the case for the compelling state interest.

a background check is meant to keep the guns out of the hands of those who have had their rights taken away, not to keep guns away from law abiding citizens. What you are in essence is promoting a society in which there is no gun control, which will lead to a higher instance of gun related deaths. You are not impeding ones ability to own a gun, you are verify the legality of actually owning a gun. Unfortunately idiots like yourself can not comprehend the difference. You have a right to vote, but now the gop wants to instill voter id. This is an infringement on out rights by your definition of infringement. We have a right states are trying to pass person hood law to supersede the right to privacy, by your definition of infringement, this is a violation of women's rights. The right wants to instill prayer in school using my tax dollars, but i dont believe in your religion, by your definition this is a violation of my right or religion (or lack of religion)

now answer my questions.

hey einstein!

Criminals will get weapons if they want to regardless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I get your point, that argument is weak. To negate laws because criminals brake them is ludicrious. Make weed legal because criminals will get them if they want to regardless! Make prescription drugs available to anyone because legal limits won't be respected by criminals!

Sorry, but there are better arguments out there.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

a background check is meant to keep the guns out of the hands of those who have had their rights taken away, not to keep guns away from law abiding citizens. What you are in essence is promoting a society in which there is no gun control, which will lead to a higher instance of gun related deaths. You are not impeding ones ability to own a gun, you are verify the legality of actually owning a gun. Unfortunately idiots like yourself can not comprehend the difference. You have a right to vote, but now the gop wants to instill voter id. This is an infringement on out rights by your definition of infringement. We have a right states are trying to pass person hood law to supersede the right to privacy, by your definition of infringement, this is a violation of women's rights. The right wants to instill prayer in school using my tax dollars, but i dont believe in your religion, by your definition this is a violation of my right or religion (or lack of religion)

now answer my questions.

hey einstein!

Criminals will get weapons if they want to regardless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I get your point, that argument is weak. To negate laws because criminals brake them is ludicrious. Make weed legal because criminals will get them if they want to regardless! Make prescription drugs available to anyone because legal limits won't be respected by criminals!

Sorry, but there are better arguments out there.

You're full of shit.

 

[wayne]

I am not a right winger, but this is a deadly serious subject. Any attempt but anyone to abridge our second amendment rights is justification for assassination and murder of liberals. The Second Amendment is our guarantee of freedom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you never answered me dumbshit.

Yawn. Post 141.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/212154-obamas-plan-for-gun-control-10.html#post4935762

now address the rest of my argument. tell me how you can own tanks, automatic weapons, RPG's and AT4's

You'll need to first address mine, which you have, as of yet, utterly failed to do.
I'm -more- than interested in seeing your counter, and making the case for the compelling state interest.

a background check is meant to keep the guns out of the hands of those who have had their rights taken away, not to keep guns away from law abiding citizens.

Intent is irrelevant.
Background checks are form of pripor restraint, which is always an infringement.
The right shall not be infringed, unless you can show compelling interest and least restrctive means.

what you are in essence is promoting a society in which there is no gun control

Non sequitur, and does nothing to reduce the soundness of my positions.

you are not impeding ones ability to own a gun, you are verify the legality of actually owning a gun.

Yes. Prior restraint, just like I said, above.

unfortunately idiots like yourself can not comprehend the difference.

Says the intllectual pre-pubescent that doesnt know what "prior restraint' is or undertsands how/why it violates the Constitution.

you have a right to vote, but now the GOP wants to instill voter ID. this is an infringement on out rights by your definition of infringement

Sigh.
The state has a compelling interest in making sure that everyone who wants to cast a ballot is who they claim to be, and the ID check is the least restrictive means to that end - to NOT verify the identity of the prospective voter violates the sanctity of the voting process, undermines the basic principles of democracy, and reduces, if not destroys, the voting rights of everyone involved.

Hint: the above is an example of what you must do to to argue a 'compelling interest' regarding licensing/registration/background checks.

now answer my questions.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you've countered my arguments or conceded that you cannot do so. Please try again.

 

[Full-Auto]

I think it's abhorring that the gun nuts are oblivious to the first half of that amendment.

Point it out and we will tear it up.

Don't tear it up, follow it! "A well-regulated militia..."

Which is formed when the call goes out, But in our case the standing army is well regulated. Which has nothing to do with private ownership.

 

[AmberR108]

I don't have any guns

I can't tell if you actually do own guns or if you being completely honest and actually don't...

Well played.

I is scared of them there guns.

Well, I guess that's understandable, I have no need for one at the moment, I have my trusty recurve bow.

 

[rightwinger]

When the call to arms goes out and the militia is formed will your point carry validity.

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

There are two halfs?

What was the first half again?

 

[Full-Auto]

I don't have any guns

I can't tell if you actually do own guns or if you being completely honest and actually don't...

Well played.

I is scared of them there guns.

I believe you officer

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I can't tell if you actually do own guns or if you being completely honest and actually don't...

Well played.

I is scared of them there guns.

Well, I guess that's understandable, I have no need for one at the moment, I have my trusty recurve bow.

I however have many firearms with enough ammo to last me a long sustained fire fight.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I can't tell if you actually do own guns or if you being completely honest and actually don't...

Well played.

I is scared of them there guns.

I believe you officer

Shuuuuush obama is watching.

 

[AmberR108]

I is scared of them there guns.

Well, I guess that's understandable, I have no need for one at the moment, I have my trusty recurve bow.

I however have many firearms with enough ammo to last me a long sustained fire fight.

Whew, now, those'll beat my arrows anyday.

 

[wayne]

The National Guard has performed above and beyond the call of duty. Fifteen guys with shot guns doesn't equate to a "well regulated militia". And there are certain weapons that do not and shall never be in the hands of American civilians.

I think it's cute how you just ignore the whole second half of the second amendment. Really.

There are two halfs?

What was the first half again?

The National Guard is not a militia; that is an insult. The National Guard is professional, part time but still professional. A militia is a community based fighting force composed of amateur civilian’s. Militia units can operate separately of the military or they can be conscripted into military units. Militia must obey the law or they cease being militia and become criminal gangs. The recent Libyan resistance was composed almost exclusively of militia units.