Universal background checks... really?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

Slavery was the law.


.

 

[2aguy]

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

It is entirely based on feelings...

 

[M14 Shooter]

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.

Please cite the ruling from the USSC to this effect.

 

[candycorn]

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.



suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

it’s not in the constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Neither is FEMA or NASA.

not sure what script you’re reading

 

[candycorn]

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

It is entirely based on feelings...

it’s written down in statutes. No feelings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.

Still waiting for you to cite the ruling from the USSC to this effect.

 

[candycorn]

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

Do you support unconstitutional acts?

Irrelevant.

Your motive determines the value of your opinion if you want some of us to accept it. If you oppose constitutional guarantees, we don't have to waste time on that portion of the discussion.

there are limits to Constitutional rights. Accept it or not... it is the truth as I have proven.

when you get right down to it, there are limits to everything. if you want to start calling parts of the constitution YOU don't think are being done properly into question, fine. there's a place for it and it's amending it. however, if we start changing it up, rest assured you'll see things like voter ID cards come up, changing how we calculate the US citizen population and the like. you can't just pick and choose what YOU want changed and shut the door on the rest.

you are literally opening a pandoras box in this route to get your personal needs covered. maybe. i daresay you'd not be happy with other changes others would make while we've got it out and in "edit mode".

You’re cute when you’re bat shit crazy.
You’re cute quite often.

Wow.

 

[iceberg]

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.



suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

it’s not in the constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Neither is FEMA or NASA.

not sure what script you’re reading

How is the air force a "right"?

 

[iceberg]

Do you support unconstitutional acts?

Irrelevant.

Your motive determines the value of your opinion if you want some of us to accept it. If you oppose constitutional guarantees, we don't have to waste time on that portion of the discussion.

there are limits to Constitutional rights. Accept it or not... it is the truth as I have proven.

when you get right down to it, there are limits to everything. if you want to start calling parts of the constitution YOU don't think are being done properly into question, fine. there's a place for it and it's amending it. however, if we start changing it up, rest assured you'll see things like voter ID cards come up, changing how we calculate the US citizen population and the like. you can't just pick and choose what YOU want changed and shut the door on the rest.

you are literally opening a pandoras box in this route to get your personal needs covered. maybe. i daresay you'd not be happy with other changes others would make while we've got it out and in "edit mode".

You’re cute when you’re bat shit crazy.
You’re cute quite often.

Wow.

Heh so you got nothing on the topic to respond with. Got it. You are done.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

It is entirely based on feelings...

it’s written down in statutes. No feelings.

Slavery was "legal."

.

 

[iceberg]

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

It is entirely based on feelings...

it’s written down in statutes. No feelings.

Slavery was "legal."

.

written down, i believe.

 

[candycorn]

Irrelevant.

Your motive determines the value of your opinion if you want some of us to accept it. If you oppose constitutional guarantees, we don't have to waste time on that portion of the discussion.

there are limits to Constitutional rights. Accept it or not... it is the truth as I have proven.

when you get right down to it, there are limits to everything. if you want to start calling parts of the constitution YOU don't think are being done properly into question, fine. there's a place for it and it's amending it. however, if we start changing it up, rest assured you'll see things like voter ID cards come up, changing how we calculate the US citizen population and the like. you can't just pick and choose what YOU want changed and shut the door on the rest.

you are literally opening a pandoras box in this route to get your personal needs covered. maybe. i daresay you'd not be happy with other changes others would make while we've got it out and in "edit mode".

You’re cute when you’re bat shit crazy.
You’re cute quite often.

Wow.

Heh so you got nothing on the topic to respond with. Got it. You are done.

yet here you are responding.

 

[candycorn]

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.



suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

it’s not in the constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Neither is FEMA or NASA.

not sure what script you’re reading

How is the air force a "right"?

never made that argument.

I did point out that it too is unconstitutional.
Do try to keep up

 

[Porter Rockwell]

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.



suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

it’s not in the constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Neither is FEMA or NASA.

not sure what script you’re reading

How is the air force a "right"?

never made that argument.

I did point out that it too is unconstitutional.
Do try to keep up

????????????????????????? Sorry, response did not compute. Elaborate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.

STILL waiting for you to cite the ruling from the USSC to this effect.

 

[candycorn]

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.



suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

it’s not in the constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Neither is FEMA or NASA.

not sure what script you’re reading

How is the air force a "right"?

never made that argument.

I did point out that it too is unconstitutional.
Do try to keep up

????????????????????????? Sorry, response did not compute. Elaborate.

I’m not surprised

 

[iceberg]

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.



suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

it’s not in the constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Neither is FEMA or NASA.

not sure what script you’re reading

How is the air force a "right"?

never made that argument.

I did point out that it too is unconstitutional.
Do try to keep up

well we were discussing the constitution and our rights. if the air force is not a part of it, why the hell did you bring it up?

please try to make sense.

 

[2aguy]

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

It is entirely based on feelings...

it’s written down in statutes. No feelings.

Slavery was "legal."

.

And the democrats supported it, maintained it, and started a war to keep it...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.



suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

it’s not in the constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Neither is FEMA or NASA.

not sure what script you’re reading

How is the air force a "right"?

never made that argument.

I did point out that it too is unconstitutional.
Do try to keep up

????????????????????????? Sorry, response did not compute. Elaborate.

I’m not surprised

If you cannot explain your position, don't expect others to understand it for you.

 

[candycorn]

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.



suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

it’s not in the constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Neither is FEMA or NASA.

not sure what script you’re reading

How is the air force a "right"?

never made that argument.

I did point out that it too is unconstitutional.
Do try to keep up

well we were discussing the constitution and our rights. if the air force is not a part of it, why the hell did you bring it up?

please try to make sense.

Pointing out things that are necessary are not in the Constitution.