A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[daveman]

Wow you one stupid racist.

Unless, of course, you're shouting it at someone on whom it has no effect whatsoever.

The left has rendered the word meaningless -- and that lets REAL racists continue their behavior.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unless, of course, you're shouting it at someone on whom it has no effect whatsoever.

The left has rendered the word meaningless -- and that lets REAL racists continue their behavior.

What really amuses me is that the leftist definition of "not a racist" requires one to be a galloping bigot to meet it. And then they wonder why I don't give a shit about meeting their "lofty standards of morality".



Sorry. You know how hard it is for me to keep a straight face while speaking of leftists and morality in the same sentence.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Let me add this: there has been an emerging consensus on the right here at USMB that even background checks for gun purchases are not acceptable.

?

identify the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO - by article, section, and clause which authorizes the federal government to conduct background checks


Identify the historical document which quotes Patrick Henry - or any founding Father - stating that the intent of the Commerce clause was to allow federal scumbags to regulate the possession of firearms

.

 

[daveman]

What really amuses me is that the leftist definition of "not a racist" requires one to be a galloping bigot to meet it. And then they wonder why I don't give a shit about meeting their "lofty standards of morality".



Sorry. You know how hard it is for me to keep a straight face while speaking of leftists and morality in the same sentence.

Leftists justify their bigotry as the natural order.

They're kinda stupid like that.

 

[daveman]

Oh no yshe is a racist, but thats on a different topic.

No, she's not, you retard.

Case history says you are wrong. Years and years of scotus opinion says you are wrong.
We has a nation have the right to regulate how you obtain said gun. We have the right to regulate you have that gun locked up.
We do not have the right to keep you outright from said gun.

You people dont seem to be able to understand the difference. You see the word infringe and think its some blanket you can hide under. Well you are wrong.

So, you're saying that the phrase "shall not be infringed" means "may be infringed".

Progressives sure are good at doublethink -- hence this thread.

Again how is scalia a progressive? He stated for the opinion of the court that you can regulate certain aspects of guns, and guns in the home.
You really have me pegged wrong here dave. I want you to have your guns. Own what you like, just pass the required checks and if they require a gun lock or case have one.

Otherwise own what you like.

"Pardon me, Mr. Burglar, would you mind waiting a moment while I unlock my gun before you shoot me and my family? Thanks!"

How do you think that will turn out?

 

[daveman]

Again how is scalia a progressive? He stated for the opinion of the court that you can regulate certain aspects of guns, and guns in the home.
You really have me pegged wrong here dave. I want you to have your guns. Own what you like, just pass the required checks and if they require a gun lock or case have one.

Otherwise own what you like.

"Pardon me, Mr. Burglar, would you mind waiting a moment while I unlock my gun before you shoot me and my family? Thanks!"

How do you think that will turn out?

Dont care. You people always find some problem. Again scotus has said the state or city has the right to regulate your gun be locked up. You have a problem with scalia and scotus, go challenge it in the courts.

Your claims of supporting gun ownership ring hollow if you don't mind people's ability to defend themselves with guns being restricted by law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow you one stupid racist. You are literally trying to pass off that you k now more about the constitution than SCOTUS.

That takes big balls.

"I think 'racist' means 'someone I don't like'! What do you mean, it has a real definition?!"

I'm sorry, WHY the fuck is it I'm supposed to listen to anything you say?

Don't worry, I don't blame you for going through life, thinking that only pompous elitists can possibly know anything, and that your proper place in the world is to shut up, accept what they tell you, and never, EVER try to think for yourself. God knows, I think that's YOUR proper place, too. Just try to understand that everyone isn't the dangerously vacuum-skulled fool that you are, and try not to project.

Nah you showed you are a racist from the trevor martin threads.
Um not really sure what that whine about elitists is about. It is quite evident you have no clue about this subject. You just recite the 2nd as if thats all that matters. No case law or court opinion on the matter.
You'd rather whine about liberals and elites doing things. I dont care about your god or your guns. Pass the proper checks and buy whatever gun you want.

Twat.

"Trevor Martin"? You can't even remember his name! I'll bet if he'd been WHITE, you'd be able to remember, you RACIST!!

Fucking spare me. All that was proven in the TRAYVON Martin threads was what I just said: You think "racist" means "something I call people I don't like". And to leftist fuckstains like you, "not a racist" requires one to be a galloping, flaming bigot to achieve.

Hang it up, shitforbrains. The only thing I don't understand about simpletons like you is why you continue to think your esteem and approval is of any value or desirability to anyone else.

What's that? You didn't understand the remarks about elitists? BIG shock, since you rarely understand anything more complicated than "See Spot run".

Let me spell it out for you. You are HORRIFIED by the very idea that someone might be so presumptuous as to believe they can think for themselves, read the Constitution for themselves, or ::gasp!:: understand for themselves what their rights and responsibilities as a citizen are, rather than dumbly shuffling along and nodding as some glorified lawyer in a black robe TELLS them who they are, what they can do, and what they "think". (I put the "think" into quotations precisely because that is what you leftist cattle are NOT doing. Letting the words of your leaders echo in an endless loop between the walls of your skull does not constitute "thinking".)

I, on the other hand, am not interested in what some group of judges has decided the Constitution says, or worse, what it SHOULD say. I can read the words for myself, and I am every bit as capable of comprehending the rules of the game (that "game" being basic citizenship) as any judge, and more so than a lot, since I'M not reading the Constitution with an eye toward how I can twist it to suit my agenda, which is frankly what they REALLY teach in law school.

So if you want to tell me about the Constitution, quote the fucking Constitution. Do NOT quote to me what some group of high-handed plutocrats whose asses you are currently excavating with your nose have told you it REALLY says, pay no attention to those pesky words, they're just a bunch of ink blots made by a crowd of rich, racist white guys who would have said THIS instead if they'd been as brilliant as we are.

Like I keep telling you, since the argument at hand is squarely about dipshits like you slavishly worshipping at the shrine of revisionist judicial activists, citing those self-same activists is unlikely to get you anywhere.

And no, triumphantly telling me what Antonin Scalia said on THIS day at THIS time, or anyone else for that matter, will not help you. Unlike you, I do not engage in celebrity or name-dropping politics. I admire well-known conservatives; I don't venerate and worship them. They're just people. Smart people, good people, sometimes even brilliantly inspired people, but people all the same. They're just as capable of being wrong as anyone else. Choirs of angels don't sing every time they open their mouths, and rainbows don't shoot out their assholes when they fart. If I say something, and you produce a quote from a conservative saying something else, that doesn't mean I'm a heretic from carved-in-stone dogma; it just means I disagree with another human being who is really no more important than I am.

Will you understand a word I just said? Let's just say I'm not betting serious money on it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You just said it......................you can drive to another state (where you don't have residency), buy a gun (where you don't have to prove ID), and be on your way.

Thanks for the verification.

So what's your point other then posting a made up number?

40 percent of the gun sales in America today are done at gun shows......................

90% of all stats about gun sales are made up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

You are a tad confused here, if something is a right I have no responsibility to fulfill in exercising that right. That should help you define the difference between a right and a token from the government to placate the idiots.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

So, you can't explain it.

I explained it quite clearly. You've created a false equivalency. The right to buy a gun is not the same as the right to vote,

therefore, it is not a valid argument to claim that someone is inconsistent if they don't apply the same restrictions/responsibilities of one to the other.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

They do that when they register to vote -- proof of address, proof of citizenship.

They they should have to show ID at the poll to prove they're the person who registered under that name.

What's so awful about that?

That was an artful dodge of the question. Let's try again:

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

Your premise is that voting and buying a gun are the same, so unless your as inconsistent as the people you're accusing of inconsistency,

you should want everyone to have a background check EACH TIME THEY VOTE.

You have already said you support background checks for EACH TIME SOMEONE BUYS A GUN.

Why aren't you being consistent?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh no yshe is a racist, but thats on a different topic.

No, she's not, you retard.

Case history says you are wrong. Years and years of scotus opinion says you are wrong.
We has a nation have the right to regulate how you obtain said gun. We have the right to regulate you have that gun locked up.
We do not have the right to keep you outright from said gun.

You people dont seem to be able to understand the difference. You see the word infringe and think its some blanket you can hide under. Well you are wrong.

So, you're saying that the phrase "shall not be infringed" means "may be infringed".

Progressives sure are good at doublethink -- hence this thread.

Again how is scalia a progressive? He stated for the opinion of the court that you can regulate certain aspects of guns, and guns in the home.
You really have me pegged wrong here dave. I want you to have your guns. Own what you like, just pass the required checks and if they require a gun lock or case have one.

Otherwise own what you like.

The better question is why you are citing someone you routinely call an idiot in order to make your point. Even when I ignore the appeal to authority inherent in your argument I am left with you quoting someone who you think is dumber than dog shit to prove your point. That actually says more about your point than it does you, and it tells me you can't muster and argument that is based on anything other than being told what to think.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

You are a tad confused here, if something is a right I have no responsibility to fulfill in exercising that right. That should help you define the difference between a right and a token from the government to placate the idiots.

Then you do not believe we actually have rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

Let me add this: there has been an emerging consensus on the right here at USMB that even background checks for gun purchases are not acceptable.

?

identify the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO - by article, section, and clause which authorizes the federal government to conduct background checks


Identify the historical document which quotes Patrick Henry - or any founding Father - stating that the intent of the Commerce clause was to allow federal scumbags to regulate the possession of firearms

.

Cite in any of those sources that background checks are not authorized.

‘But that’s not in the Constitution’ is an ignorant and failed ‘argument.’ The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

You are a tad confused here, if something is a right I have no responsibility to fulfill in exercising that right. That should help you define the difference between a right and a token from the government to placate the idiots.

Then you would be one of those people here that daveman is loathe to admit exist in any numbers, i.e.,

someone who thinks background checks to purchase a gun are unconstitutional, or at least in principle a violation of your right to bear arms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Let me add this: there has been an emerging consensus on the right here at USMB that even background checks for gun purchases are not acceptable.

?

identify the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO - by article, section, and clause which authorizes the federal government to conduct background checks


Identify the historical document which quotes Patrick Henry - or any founding Father - stating that the intent of the Commerce clause was to allow federal scumbags to regulate the possession of firearms

.

You want me to take the bait of a false premise. Maybe you should defend your premise by proving that the nothing can be done unless the Constitution specifically and explicitly says it can be done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

Voting is a fundamental right, gun ownership, not.

SCOTUS held that the 2nd affirms an individual right.

So it looks like you're wrong.

Looks can be deceiving.

No, an individual right and fundamental right are not the same thing.

You need to read and comprehend all of post #47; that you disagree with how the courts have addressed Second Amendment jurisprudence is of course irrelevant, as it clearly explains to you why there is no ‘dichotomy’ concerning the fundamental right to vote, and the individual right to own a handgun.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Voting is a fundamental right, gun ownership, not.

SCOTUS held that the 2nd affirms an individual right.

So it looks like you're wrong.

Looks can be deceiving.

No, an individual right and fundamental right are not the same thing.

You need to read and comprehend all of post #47; that you disagree with how the courts have addressed Second Amendment jurisprudence is of course irrelevant, as it clearly explains to you why there is no ‘dichotomy’ concerning the fundamental right to vote, and the individual right to own a handgun.

lets be honest, the liberal goal is to abolish the right to keep and bear arms. It only makes sense since the right was given to us to defend ourselves against big liberal government.

Is it coincidence the conservatives support the right while liberals don't???

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

You are a tad confused here, if something is a right I have no responsibility to fulfill in exercising that right. That should help you define the difference between a right and a token from the government to placate the idiots.

Then you do not believe we actually have rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms.

That's me, the guy that doesn't believe I have rights because I refuse to acknowledge the government's ability to regulate my rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

You are a tad confused here, if something is a right I have no responsibility to fulfill in exercising that right. That should help you define the difference between a right and a token from the government to placate the idiots.

Then you would be one of those people here that daveman is loathe to admit exist in any numbers, i.e.,

someone who thinks background checks to purchase a gun are unconstitutional, or at least in principle a violation of your right to bear arms.

Unfortunate,y, he is right, there aren't very many of us. Nowhere near enough to keep the idiots from throwing government force in the way of free people.