Both Sides of the Gun Debate Need to Listen to This

[Weatherman2020]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

The same argument can be made about licensing cars and drivers.

Say what? Someone saying driving license laws need to be changed?

No but why register cars unless we want to take them away from their owners?

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

What’s the next strawman, loaded guns not left on playgrounds?

 

[Flash]

Yes we know you filthy ass Libtards have the right to kill the children. Gloat over it Moon Bat.

I guarantee I like abortions a lot less than you like guns.

The good news on abortions is there were 25% fewer today than in 2000 while gun deaths are up slightly over the same time period. Still too many of each.

You are lying Moon Bat.

I would gladly give up all of my firearms if I knew that any of them ever being used to kill a child. My firearms are being used for legal purposes in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

However, you stupid and immoral Moon Bats support the slaughter of a million American children every year, on demand for the sake of convenience and that is despicable.

Liberals don't give a shit about children. They never have and they never will. The irony is that the person that started Planned Parenthood did it for the reasons of infanticide to cull out the less desirable children in our society.

By orders of magnitude more children are killed each year because of the murderous support of abortion by you filthy Liberals than by firearms.

 

[alang1216]

You register a car for several reasons, but most have to be about using one on a TAX PAYER FUNDED ROADWAY.

Do any of the reasons include a hidden agenda to confiscate the cars?

 

[alang1216]

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

Yes. I would like to ensure that only law-abiding, trained, sane people have access to guns.

 

[Pop23]

You register a car for several reasons, but most have to be about using one on a TAX PAYER FUNDED ROADWAY.

Do any of the reasons include a hidden agenda to confiscate the cars?

No, automobiles are not covered in the constitution.

Continue

 

[Pop23]

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

Yes. I would like to ensure that only law-abiding, trained, sane people have access to guns.

I'd rather have all citizens get in line and become law-abiding

 

[Weatherman2020]

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

Yes. I would like to ensure that only law-abiding, trained, sane people have access to guns.

Well you got your wish.

It’s against the law to have an unregistered gun.

How many murders were stopped?

You make my point. All discussion of guns is motivated by grabbing. There are never any proposals for anything else that would have prevented any of these murderers.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

Yes. I would like to ensure that only law-abiding, trained, sane people have access to guns.

I'd rather have all citizens get in line and become law-abiding

We should have a law that everyone must follow laws.

 

[Pop23]

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

Yes. I would like to ensure that only law-abiding, trained, sane people have access to guns.

I'd rather have all citizens get in line and become law-abiding

We should have a law that everyone must follow laws.

We Don't? I'm staging a march on Washington. Maybe I'll become famous!

 

[alang1216]

It’s against the law to have an unregistered gun.

Not where I live it isn't unless you want an 'assault rifle' or fully automatic. Rifles and pistols don't require registration.

 

[Pop23]

It’s against the law to have an unregistered gun.

Not where I live it isn't unless you want an 'assault rifle' or fully automatic. Rifles and pistols don't require registration.

What's your point about registration anywho?

You want guns registered just like we do cars?

 

[Weatherman2020]

It’s against the law to have an unregistered gun.

Not where I live it isn't unless you want an 'assault rifle' or fully automatic. Rifles and pistols don't require registration.

Which mass murderer used unregistered guns or guns not legally entitled to have?

 

[Flash]

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

Yes. I would like to ensure that only law-abiding, trained, sane people have access to guns.

I am sorry Moon Bat but according to the Bill of Rights you don't have to get permission from the filthy ass oppressive government in order to have the right to keep and bear.

Do you even know what the Bill of Rights is?

It says very specifically that being necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you have to prove to the filthy ass government that you are worthy to have that right then it really isn't a right at all, is it? In fact if you have to get permission for the filthy government to enjoy a right spelled out in the BORs then it isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it? Isn't also a case of you are guilty until the government says you are innocent. Gun control is despicable, isn't it?

Remember when that asshole Obama says that veterans are potential terrorists? Do you really want some government loony like him to determine who should have the right to keep and bear arms and who shouldn't? If you do then you are an idiot. How about the asshole Democrats in New York passing the SAFE Act and then a veteran had his firearms confiscated because he visited the doctor because of a mild case of insomnia? Do you really want government shitheads like that doling out your Constitutional rights? If you do then you are an idiot.

Would you like for me to give you some more examples of the government infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms? I think I have done that several times but you being a stupid Moon Bat don't understand.

 

[hunarcy]

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

Yes I do. My 24 AR-15s are all "arms". So is my FAL, two MIAs, AR-10, M-1 Carbine, M-1 Garand and the other couple of dozen firearms I own. Looks like you are the one having a difficult time with it.

Can you provide a definition of 'arms'? You just gave me some examples so I'm thinking I'm right that an 'arm' is subjective and akin to pornography and so cannot be defined.

I know I'm wasting my time, and playing into your trolling game, but arms are weapons and ammunition; armaments.

Knives are weapons too but we both know an 'arm' fires ammunition of some kind. Does the 2nd amendment cover ALL arms? If it doesn't, why or why not?

We both don't know that an arm only fires ammunition. Knives, swords and battle axes are arms as well. ALL are covered by the 2nd Amendment. Now, it's time to spring your little troll trap...go!

 

[hunarcy]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

I will let Justice Scalia explain it to you...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

b. “Keep and bear Arms.”

We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”).

Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1

J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

So the 2nd should be interpreted, according to Scalia, as making ownership of fully automatic weapons and handheld rockets (rpgs) a right?

Yes, unless YOU give up your right by misusing the right to behave in a way that makes you dangerous.

 

[hunarcy]

These Libtards don't want to hear that so they ignore it.

Just like they ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has been declared by the Supreme Court as an individual right and not restricted to some state regulated militia.

Liberals are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

Spoke to Dred Scott too, doesn’t make it right or permanent.

Although unpopular, the Dred Scott decision was proper and required under the Constitution at that time. Luckily, the Constitution was later amended and the Dred Scott decision is no longer valid.

 

[hunarcy]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

The same argument can be made about licensing cars and drivers.

Say what? Someone saying driving license laws need to be changed?

No but why register cars unless we want to take them away from their owners?

Cars are not required to be registered to be purchased.

Only to be used on a public road.

 

[hunarcy]

Are you really arguing that guns should be registered?

Yes. I would like to ensure that only law-abiding, trained, sane people have access to guns.

trained is not a requirement. Sane and law abiding, after due process is acceptable.

 

[Flash]

I can't understand why all these stupid Moon Bats are so anxious to give up their Constitutional rights and put their security in the hands of the government and crooks. That is just plain dumb. Our Founding Fathers certainly knew that.

It has been proven over and over again that gun control laws have a negligible effect on crime. The Moon Bats are always on the dumb side of every issue but this one is mother of all stupidity.

 

[Weatherman2020]

These Libtards don't want to hear that so they ignore it.

Just like they ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has been declared by the Supreme Court as an individual right and not restricted to some state regulated militia.

Liberals are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

Spoke to Dred Scott too, doesn’t make it right or permanent.

Although unpopular, the Dred Scott decision was proper and required under the Constitution at that time. Luckily, the Constitution was later amended and the Dred Scott decision is no longer valid.

Maybe, maybe not.
But still disembowels any argument that just because the SCOTUS votes for something does not make it right or moral.

Government seizure of private property so that it may be used by another private citizen is yet another example where the court blew it. Imprisonment of Americans for simply having a family history linking to Japan is another.