What right does he have to demand I lose my rights?

[RetiredGySgt]

Nothing in the second amendment prevents reasonable restrictions on guns, background checks or registration

Even the NRA knows that

Shall not be infringed. any restriction is an infringement.

on top of that nothing being proposed by anti gun nuts is even remotely close to being reasonable.

Even Heller acknowledged that the second amendment is not absolute

What is unreasonable about background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of crazies or restricting high capacity magazines?

California has all those laws and it did not stop the last mass shooter. In fact they have registration and the ability of the cops to check who owns what weapons and they did not use it. Further they have a mental health provision that allows them to put a person in 3 days of observed lock down for mental problems while taking their firearms and they did not do it.

None of those laws stopped the last shooter in California. care to explain to us what ELSE you demand?

 

[rightwinger]

no, it is already decided by the 2nd amendment.

What has been decided?

Well regulated militias?

It has been decided that the 2nd is an individual right irregardless of membership or service in a militia.

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What has been decided?

Well regulated militias?

It has been decided that the 2nd is an individual right irregardless of membership or service in a militia.

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

Look you dumbass THAT was the decision of the Courts.

 

[rightwinger]

Shall not be infringed. any restriction is an infringement.

on top of that nothing being proposed by anti gun nuts is even remotely close to being reasonable.

Even Heller acknowledged that the second amendment is not absolute

What is unreasonable about background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of crazies or restricting high capacity magazines?

California has all those laws and it did not stop the last mass shooter. In fact they have registration and the ability of the cops to check who owns what weapons and they did not use it. Further they have a mental health provision that allows them to put a person in 3 days of observed lock down for mental problems while taking their firearms and they did not do it.

None of those laws stopped the last shooter in California. care to explain to us what ELSE you demand?

Are you claiming the California Laws do not go far enough?

That child's father will agree with you

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Even Heller acknowledged that the second amendment is not absolute

What is unreasonable about background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of crazies or restricting high capacity magazines?

California has all those laws and it did not stop the last mass shooter. In fact they have registration and the ability of the cops to check who owns what weapons and they did not use it. Further they have a mental health provision that allows them to put a person in 3 days of observed lock down for mental problems while taking their firearms and they did not do it.

None of those laws stopped the last shooter in California. care to explain to us what ELSE you demand?

Are you claiming the California Laws do not go far enough?

That child's father will agree with you

You don't get to play word games. YOU claimed we need these laws to prevent shootings. I just provided the fact that those laws do no such thing. And I have asked you repeatedly to state for the record what you claim is REASONABLE laws that are not currently on the books. You of course refuse to answer because you are a lying shit stained weasel that thinks you can play word games.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Last time I looked at the numbers, 100% of all death row inmates had been there for decades on decades, and were all second time convicts.

In other words, when you have people who committed murder, and were convicted, and then were able to murder a second time, and were convicted twice. Duh... yeah, that's not a deterrent. If these people had been hanged on a tree the first time, there would not have been a second murder.

Can anyone substantiate the claim that "100% of all death row inmates had been there for decades on decades, and were all second time convicts [of murder]" ?
Can anyone substantiate the claim that 100% of death row inmates are were convicted of murder once before they were convicted of a second murder offense and then sentenced to death?
I ask because here's a link to a death row inmate in Texas
https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_info/wardadam.html
Date of offense: 06/13/2005
Crime: Murder, one victim
Prior Convictions: None

I do not oppose the death penalty. I just want to know where these wild claims are coming from.

 

[rightwinger]

It has been decided that the 2nd is an individual right irregardless of membership or service in a militia.

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

Look you dumbass THAT was the decision of the Courts.

Just as the courts will decide on any future gun restrictions

 

[Andylusion]

That would be for a court to decide wouldn't it?

no, it is already decided by the 2nd amendment.

What has been decided?

Well regulated militias?

You can't just change the meaning of words. Militias, as the term was used by those in the 1790s, referred to every able bodied man. If you were old enough to shoot, you were considered part of the militia.

Everyone was part of the militia, thus everyone had the right to bare arms.

The courts do not have the right, to simply redefine what the writers of the amendment said. If you want to change the constitution, we have an amendment process for that.

But of course that would fail completely, and you all know it. Which is what you want the courts to try and just redefine words to fit your personal bias. Well.. you try and do that, and you'll have a second revolution on your hands.

 

[rightwinger]

California has all those laws and it did not stop the last mass shooter. In fact they have registration and the ability of the cops to check who owns what weapons and they did not use it. Further they have a mental health provision that allows them to put a person in 3 days of observed lock down for mental problems while taking their firearms and they did not do it.

None of those laws stopped the last shooter in California. care to explain to us what ELSE you demand?

Are you claiming the California Laws do not go far enough?

That child's father will agree with you

You don't get to play word games. YOU claimed we need these laws to prevent shootings. I just provided the fact that those laws do no such thing. And I have asked you repeatedly to state for the record what you claim is REASONABLE laws that are not currently on the books. You of course refuse to answer because you are a lying shit stained weasel that thinks you can play word games.

I didn't claim it

The dead child's father did

You openly mocked his right to do so. You fucking asshole

 

[Andylusion]

Are you claiming the California Laws do not go far enough?

That child's father will agree with you

You don't get to play word games. YOU claimed we need these laws to prevent shootings. I just provided the fact that those laws do no such thing. And I have asked you repeatedly to state for the record what you claim is REASONABLE laws that are not currently on the books. You of course refuse to answer because you are a lying shit stained weasel that thinks you can play word games.

I didn't claim it

The dead child's father did

You openly mocked his right to do so. You fucking asshole

He has the right to say the moon is made of cheese as well. Doesn't mean his statement is right.

As for attacking a poster for pointing that out, grow up. Stop being such a jerk, simply because you have no better response.

 

[JoeB131]

[

That's your opinion. The one before was mine.

Well we've done it your way, and look at the murder rate compared to the rest of the world.

The blood of all those people, as far as I'm concerned, is on your head. You, and those like you, killed all those people by not enforcing the law. You are as guilty as the murderers you all defend.

No, the blood is on the hands of assholes like you who insist every crazy fuck needs a gun and income inequality and racism are just dandy, and we can keep them colored in line by executing them.

Just ignore the rest of the world, which has abolished the death penalty, doesn't allow individual gun ownership, doesn't imprison 2% of it's population. If they have a lower murder rate, we just pretend they don't.

 

[rightwinger]

You don't get to play word games. YOU claimed we need these laws to prevent shootings. I just provided the fact that those laws do no such thing. And I have asked you repeatedly to state for the record what you claim is REASONABLE laws that are not currently on the books. You of course refuse to answer because you are a lying shit stained weasel that thinks you can play word games.

I didn't claim it

The dead child's father did

You openly mocked his right to do so. You fucking asshole

He has the right to say the moon is made of cheese as well. Doesn't mean his statement is right.

As for attacking a poster for pointing that out, grow up. Stop being such a jerk, simply because you have no better response.

Anyone who would mock a grieving father is a fucking asshole

I stand by my position

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Last time I looked at the numbers, 100% of all death row inmates had been there for decades on decades, and were all second time convicts.

In other words, when you have people who committed murder, and were convicted, and then were able to murder a second time, and were convicted twice. Duh... yeah, that's not a deterrent. If these people had been hanged on a tree the first time, there would not have been a second murder.

But to the point- NO, most murderers on Death Row are not second time offenders. And some people on Death Row didn't even do what they were convicted of doing to start with.

148 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated or it was proven someone else did it.

That's your opinion. The one before was mine.

Snipped for brevity

At least in terms of actual statistics of death row inmates JoeB has a point, Androw has fantasy.

I don't see how making up wild claims about the number of murder convictions attributable to each death row inmate has any bearing on the debate over gun control.
Unless we're painting a dystopian fantasy picture of a Road Warrior America where everyone needs a good weapon and a trusty dog.
If that's the way you feel then just mount twin .50 cals on top of your SUV and fire on anything that looks less than friendly when on your way to pick the kids up from soccer.

I mean, if we're going to do crazy talk, then let's do some crazy talk!
Get yourself a cruise missile to stop your neighbor's kids from playing that damned dubstep crap! Plant landmines in yard, that'll teach the mailman to bring you junk mail!

Look I actually think people have a right to own firearms. Plural. And I think most people are responsible with their firearms.

But if we're gonna get with the crazy, then let's double down on the crazy, no half assin'!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Anyone who would mock a grieving father is a fucking asshole

I stand by my position

They would mock their sainted mother, if she had the nerve to say that maybe, just maybe, guns were not a gift from God. No Mother's Day card for you you gun-grabbing Nazi Leftist Pig.

 

[hunarcy]

What has been decided?

Well regulated militias?

It has been decided that the 2nd is an individual right irregardless of membership or service in a militia.

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't

The Court decided it was an individual right and had nothing to do with the militia.

 

[hunarcy]

He has the right because he lost a child to senseless gun violence

He has a dog in the fight and a right to demand something be done

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

As I said, he has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed. No matter how tragic, his loss does not trump the rights of another.

 

[hunarcy]

He has the right because he lost a child to senseless gun violence

He has a dog in the fight and a right to demand something be done

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

That would be for a court to decide wouldn't it?

No.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anyone that would demand we lose a right because .0001 percent of the population is effected is a nutjob.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It has been decided that the 2nd is an individual right irregardless of membership or service in a militia.

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't

The Court decided it was an individual right and had nothing to do with the militia.

The Court also decided that a woman has the right to decide to have a child or not absent interference from the state.

You indeed can’t have it both ways.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't

The Court decided it was an individual right and had nothing to do with the militia.

The Court also decided that a woman has the right to decide to have a child or not absent interference from the state.

You indeed can’t have it both ways.

They said no such thing, just as you keep claiming the 2nd can be controlled by laws so can the right to abortion. Further the Government has every reason to intercede in abortion as it is a medical practice that if conducted at any stage in the Pregnancy would result in the murder of viable children.

As a reminder one State has limited abortion to before the 20th week. Other States limit it almost as much. There is no Amendment that proclaims the right shall not be infringed either.