The 2nd Amendment Wins Again

[Rustic]

Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...

Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .

And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?

we have the 2nd and yet I cannot buy certain rifles or magazines in my state

Only the unorganized militia whines about it, instead of having a solution of getting well regulated.

When the federal government regulates anything it fucks over the citizens of this country.

is our military and police exempt from your otherwise, cognitive dissonance?

Obviously the military, police and fire are a necessary expense… But at least they are a duty. The same cannot be said for any other parts of the federal government.

 

[danielpalos]

Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .

And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?

we have the 2nd and yet I cannot buy certain rifles or magazines in my state

Only the unorganized militia whines about it, instead of having a solution of getting well regulated.

When the federal government regulates anything it fucks over the citizens of this country.

is our military and police exempt from your otherwise, cognitive dissonance?

Obviously the military, police and fire are a necessary expense… But at least they are a duty. The same cannot be said for any other parts of the federal government.

you cannot cherry pick.

 

[Rustic]

we have the 2nd and yet I cannot buy certain rifles or magazines in my state

Only the unorganized militia whines about it, instead of having a solution of getting well regulated.

When the federal government regulates anything it fucks over the citizens of this country.

is our military and police exempt from your otherwise, cognitive dissonance?

Obviously the military, police and fire are a necessary expense… But at least they are a duty. The same cannot be said for any other parts of the federal government.

you cannot cherry pick.

Yeah, cherry pick and cut until it hurts then cut some more… That would be a good start how to treat the federal government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[


so who here says that any felon should be able to buy a gun?

if there's that many it should be easy to find a quote

It depends on the felony.

Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.

Violent felons are a different story.

IMO a criminal is a criminal

choose to break the law lose your rights

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

who gets a misdemeanor conviction for an occasional speeding ticket?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact

How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?

Really? Registration is the first step on the road to confiscation

Do you have to register to exercise any other Constitutionally protected right?

No.

Simply mustering into well regulated militia, secures your rights, literally.

I am a militia of one charged with the protection of my wife and property

Dear, there can be, no Militia of One. That means we lost. Only paid regulars can afford, paid advertisement.

Of course there can

 

[Uncensored2008]

It depends on the felony.

Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.

Violent felons are a different story.

IMO a criminal is a criminal

choose to break the law lose your rights

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

who gets a misdemeanor conviction for an occasional speeding ticket?

It's possible in California. If they think you are racing you will be charged with a misdemeanor. If you are doing more than 20MPH above the posted limit they could charge you with a misdemeanor, though generally don't.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IMO a criminal is a criminal

choose to break the law lose your rights

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

who gets a misdemeanor conviction for an occasional speeding ticket?

It's possible in California. If they think you are racing you will be charged with a misdemeanor. If you are doing more than 20MPH above the posted limit they could charge you with a misdemeanor, though generally don't.

CA really?

The rest of us have more sense and I have yet to see anyone convicted in court of a misdemeanor for speeding

 

[Uncensored2008]

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

who gets a misdemeanor conviction for an occasional speeding ticket?

It's possible in California. If they think you are racing you will be charged with a misdemeanor. If you are doing more than 20MPH above the posted limit they could charge you with a misdemeanor, though generally don't.

CA really?

The rest of us have more sense and I have yet to see anyone convicted in court of a misdemeanor for speeding

Sadly, street racing is an epidemic out here, which a high body count.

 

[OKTexas]

It depends on the felony.

Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.

Violent felons are a different story.

IMO a criminal is a criminal

choose to break the law lose your rights

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

who gets a misdemeanor conviction for an occasional speeding ticket?

Depends on how fast you're going, but that wasn't the point. You can slap a mouthy child and get a misdemeanor domestic assault charge and lose you gun rights. It doesn't matter that a gun wasn't involved.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IMO a criminal is a criminal

choose to break the law lose your rights

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

who gets a misdemeanor conviction for an occasional speeding ticket?

Depends on how fast you're going, but that wasn't the point. You can slap a mouthy child and get a misdemeanor domestic assault charge and lose you gun rights. It doesn't matter that a gun wasn't involved.

I don't have a problem with that
People who cannot control their tempers should not be armed
And I really don't think I have a problem with anyone convicted of any crime not being able to buy a gun.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[OKTexas]

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

who gets a misdemeanor conviction for an occasional speeding ticket?

Depends on how fast you're going, but that wasn't the point. You can slap a mouthy child and get a misdemeanor domestic assault charge and lose you gun rights. It doesn't matter that a gun wasn't involved.

I don't have a problem with that
People who cannot control their tempers should not be armed
And I really don't think I have a problem with anyone convicted of any crime not being able to buy a gun.

So you're going to surrender your rights because of those speeding tickets you paid? States have broadened laws on domestic violence so much, you can be convicted for swatting your kid with an open hand or a loud argument with your spouse. You nanny staters are fucking ridiculous.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia whines about it, instead of having a solution of getting well regulated.

When the federal government regulates anything it fucks over the citizens of this country.

is our military and police exempt from your otherwise, cognitive dissonance?

Obviously the military, police and fire are a necessary expense… But at least they are a duty. The same cannot be said for any other parts of the federal government.

you cannot cherry pick.

Yeah, cherry pick and cut until it hurts then cut some more… That would be a good start how to treat the federal government.

Mr. Trump and the poor only pay the personal income taxes we are required, by law.

Don't complain; be Patriotic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.

It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?

infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.

The problem there is requiring a license doesn't prohibit people from that right. So if challenged, that may be the grounds on which they base their case. You have to register to vote. In some states, you have to obtain a Voter-ID as well.

False equivalent, you don't have to pay to register to vote and common State issued IDs are acceptable for voting. Oh and there's no proficiency or political knowledge test to register to vote.

Understood, but the point I was making is that yes, your local government can constitutionally regulate your rights; not take them away, but have requirements. it's the very same debate we have with Voter-ID. The left says getting a Voter-ID is unconstitutional because it's a requirement of their right, and we say it isn't because any legal person can get one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

who gets a misdemeanor conviction for an occasional speeding ticket?

Depends on how fast you're going, but that wasn't the point. You can slap a mouthy child and get a misdemeanor domestic assault charge and lose you gun rights. It doesn't matter that a gun wasn't involved.

I don't have a problem with that
People who cannot control their tempers should not be armed
And I really don't think I have a problem with anyone convicted of any crime not being able to buy a gun.

So you're going to surrender your rights because of those speeding tickets you paid? States have broadened laws on domestic violence so much, you can be convicted for swatting your kid with an open hand or a loud argument with your spouse. You nanny staters are fucking ridiculous.

i told you I was never convicted of a misdemeanor for speeding very few people ever are. and yeah I got a ticket but I never got a second one so I guess I learned a little better than most

And since when is being intolerant of criminals being a nanny stater?

if it's proven in court that you struck your wife then you are not responsible enough to own a gun

If as you say a loud argument gets you convicted in court of a crime then there was something else going on

 

[danielpalos]

Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.

It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?

infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.

The problem there is requiring a license doesn't prohibit people from that right. So if challenged, that may be the grounds on which they base their case. You have to register to vote. In some states, you have to obtain a Voter-ID as well.

False equivalent, you don't have to pay to register to vote and common State issued IDs are acceptable for voting. Oh and there's no proficiency or political knowledge test to register to vote.

Understood, but the point I was making is that yes, your local government can constitutionally regulate your rights; not take them away, but have requirements. it's the very same debate we have with Voter-ID. The left says getting a Voter-ID is unconstitutional because it's a requirement of their right, and we say it isn't because any legal person can get one.

Free ID to vote!

 

[OKTexas]

Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.

It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?

infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.

The problem there is requiring a license doesn't prohibit people from that right. So if challenged, that may be the grounds on which they base their case. You have to register to vote. In some states, you have to obtain a Voter-ID as well.

False equivalent, you don't have to pay to register to vote and common State issued IDs are acceptable for voting. Oh and there's no proficiency or political knowledge test to register to vote.

Understood, but the point I was making is that yes, your local government can constitutionally regulate your rights; not take them away, but have requirements. it's the very same debate we have with Voter-ID. The left says getting a Voter-ID is unconstitutional because it's a requirement of their right, and we say it isn't because any legal person can get one.

Free ID to vote!

Done, next!

 

[danielpalos]

It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?

infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.

The problem there is requiring a license doesn't prohibit people from that right. So if challenged, that may be the grounds on which they base their case. You have to register to vote. In some states, you have to obtain a Voter-ID as well.

False equivalent, you don't have to pay to register to vote and common State issued IDs are acceptable for voting. Oh and there's no proficiency or political knowledge test to register to vote.

Understood, but the point I was making is that yes, your local government can constitutionally regulate your rights; not take them away, but have requirements. it's the very same debate we have with Voter-ID. The left says getting a Voter-ID is unconstitutional because it's a requirement of their right, and we say it isn't because any legal person can get one.

Free ID to vote!

Done, next!

you were wonderful.