"common Sense Gun Laws"

[Spoonman]

So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

Aside form the fact that you, unsurprisingly, didn't address what I said in response to your question....
Yes I do, a right that I have exercised any number of times.
You have the right to exercise all of your rights absent restrictions that do not pass a rational basis test, a test that any unenforceable law cannot pass.

the 2nd amendment was, for hundreds of years, found to have nothing to do with a private right of gun ownership. the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

I did answer you. I pointed out that what you are claiming as a right is not a right.

for hundreds of years gun grabbing lunatics weren't around trying to take away peoples rights. that's a modern day disease.

 

[jillian]

Miller did not say you could not regulate guns. That is false.

It didn't say you couldn't Hula Hoop on Sundays either.
It DID however, recognize that owning a gun is an individual right. That was a couple of years before Scalia joined the court, as you ignorantly spewed.

Miller was granted standing in his argument that the 2nd protected his right to own the weapon in question.
This necessarily means that the court saw the 2nd as a protection of a right of the individual, not tied to service in the militia.
And so, while Miller does not literally express the sentiment, in practice it states exactly that.

Correct.
Jillian would do well to take a class in basic law or attempt to gain an understanding of how American Jurisprudence works.

Jillian claims to be an attorney.
Yeah, I laughed too.

i know it makes you idiots feel better about your lack of education and knowledge to say that. but no worries, loon.

i really miss when this board had decent people on it. there used to be place for decent discussion. you trash mouth loons are useless

 

[M14 Shooter]

Miller did not say you could not regulate guns. That is false.

It didn't say you couldn't Hula Hoop on Sundays either.
It DID however, recognize that owning a gun is an individual right. That was a couple of years before Scalia joined the court, as you ignorantly spewed.

Miller was granted standing in his argument that the 2nd protected his right to own the weapon in question.
This necessarily means that the court saw the 2nd as a protection of a right of the individual, not tied to service in the militia.
And so, while Miller does not literally express the sentiment, in practice it states exactly that.

Correct.
Jillian would do well to take a class in basic law or attempt to gain an understanding of how American Jurisprudence works.

Jillian claims to be an attorney.
Yeah, I laughed too.

i know it makes you idiots feel better about your lack of education and knowledge to say that. but no worries, loon.
i really miss when this board had decent people on it. there used to be place for decent discussion. you trash mouth loons are useless

Your demonstrable inability to post anything of substance, especially in response to criticisms and questions about your positions, speaks more loudly than any claim I, or anyone else, could ever make about you.

 

[rdean]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

None. Everyone should be packing. An uzi.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

None. Everyone should be packing. An uzi.

Since automatic weapons are illegal what's your point?

 

[RKMBrown]

So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

Aside form the fact that you, unsurprisingly, didn't address what I said in response to your question....
Yes I do, a right that I have exercised any number of times.
You have the right to exercise all of your rights absent restrictions that do not pass a rational basis test, a test that any unenforceable law cannot pass.

the 2nd amendment was, for hundreds of years, found to have nothing to do with a private right of gun ownership. the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

I did answer you. I pointed out that what you are claiming as a right is not a right.

for hundreds of years gun grabbing lunatics weren't around trying to take away peoples rights. that's a modern day disease.

Nah... check your gun at the sheriff's office when you get to town was not uncommon even in the old west...

 

[RKMBrown]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

None. Everyone should be packing. An uzi.

Since automatic weapons are illegal what's your point?

Automatic weapons are not illegal.

 

[jillian]

It didn't say you couldn't Hula Hoop on Sundays either.
It DID however, recognize that owning a gun is an individual right. That was a couple of years before Scalia joined the court, as you ignorantly spewed.

Miller was granted standing in his argument that the 2nd protected his right to own the weapon in question.
This necessarily means that the court saw the 2nd as a protection of a right of the individual, not tied to service in the militia.
And so, while Miller does not literally express the sentiment, in practice it states exactly that.

Correct.
Jillian would do well to take a class in basic law or attempt to gain an understanding of how American Jurisprudence works.

Jillian claims to be an attorney.
Yeah, I laughed too.

i know it makes you idiots feel better about your lack of education and knowledge to say that. but no worries, loon.
i really miss when this board had decent people on it. there used to be place for decent discussion. you trash mouth loons are useless

Your demonstrable inability to post anything of substance, especially in response to criticisms and questions about your positions, speaks more loudly than any claim I, or anyone else, could ever make about you.

you have never said anything of substance to discuss.

but whatever makes you feel better about being a loser

 

[jillian]

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

Aside form the fact that you, unsurprisingly, didn't address what I said in response to your question....
Yes I do, a right that I have exercised any number of times.
You have the right to exercise all of your rights absent restrictions that do not pass a rational basis test, a test that any unenforceable law cannot pass.

the 2nd amendment was, for hundreds of years, found to have nothing to do with a private right of gun ownership. the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

I did answer you. I pointed out that what you are claiming as a right is not a right.

for hundreds of years gun grabbing lunatics weren't around trying to take away peoples rights. that's a modern day disease.

Nah... check your gun at the sheriff's office when you get to town was not uncommon even in the old west...

reality is irrelevant to someone who defines himself by his gun. but I guess that's what happens when someone like him wants to pretend he has genitals.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

None. Everyone should be packing. An uzi.

Since automatic weapons are illegal what's your point?

Automatic weapons are not illegal.

I stand corrected but there are so may restrictions and regulations that they are difficult to own and not readily available

 

[RKMBrown]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

None. Everyone should be packing. An uzi.

Since automatic weapons are illegal what's your point?

Automatic weapons are not illegal.

I stand corrected but there are so may restrictions and regulations that they are difficult to own and not readily available

Elections have consequences... If you are willing to work out of mexico our government will give you a machine gun and a job shipping immigrants across the border.

 

[Uncensored2008]

i know it makes you idiots feel better about your lack of education and knowledge to say that. but no worries, loon.

i really miss when this board had decent people on it. there used to be place for decent discussion. you trash mouth loons are useless

You are in here arguing gun law, yet didn't even know that Miller established legal precedence of ownership as an individual right. Instead you spewed idiocy from KOS or ThinkProgress about Scalia.

Look Jilie, I am not a lawyer. I do not have a JD. I have an MBA, which required me to take 6 courses on law, contract litigation, tort, labor law, etc. I took law classes from the standpoint of a business expert, not as a path to a legal practice, as one professor put it, so we would know when lawyers were lying to us. Even so, it is painfully clear that I have VASTLY more knowledge of the law and legal proceedings than you do.

Clearly you have no grasp of law or legal procedures.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nah... check your gun at the sheriff's office when you get to town was not uncommon even in the old west...

Actually, it was very uncommon. The Earp boys were the original gun grabbers.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah... check your gun at the sheriff's office when you get to town was not uncommon even in the old west...

Actually, it was very uncommon. The Earp boys were the original gun grabbers.

How is evidence of gun grabbing the same as evidence it was uncommon?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How is evidence of gun grabbing the same as evidence it was uncommon?

You claim it was common in the Old West, so other than Dodge and Tombstone, show 3 towns of the West between 1860 and 1900 that prohibited guns?

I can actually think of one that outlawed guns for about 6 months, so if you get it, you'll only need two more.

 

[RKMBrown]

How is evidence of gun grabbing the same as evidence it was uncommon?

You claim it was common in the Old West, so other than Dodge and Tombstone, show 3 towns of the West between 1860 and 1900 that prohibited guns?

I can actually think of one that outlawed guns for about 6 months, so if you get it, you'll only need two more.

1813, Kentucky - first cc weapon statute, Indiana, Alabama and Arkansas followed suit.
1837, Georgia - banned the sale of small pistols.
Wichita also banned guns.

I believe the practice was not unique to Witchita, Dodge, and Tombstone, but it does not seem to be something that is easy to find via the interweb.

 

[jillian]

i know it makes you idiots feel better about your lack of education and knowledge to say that. but no worries, loon.

i really miss when this board had decent people on it. there used to be place for decent discussion. you trash mouth loons are useless

You are in here arguing gun law, yet didn't even know that Miller established legal precedence of ownership as an individual right. Instead you spewed idiocy from KOS or ThinkProgress about Scalia.

Look Jilie, I am not a lawyer. I do not have a JD. I have an MBA, which required me to take 6 courses on law, contract litigation, tort, labor law, etc. I took law classes from the standpoint of a business expert, not as a path to a legal practice, as one professor put it, so we would know when lawyers were lying to us. Even so, it is painfully clear that I have VASTLY more knowledge of the law and legal proceedings than you do.

Clearly you have no grasp of law or legal procedures.

and from someone who's never been in a courtroom except as a party, i'll take that for what it is, a continued pathetic effort on the part of rightwingnut bullies to try to make themselves feel better about their lack of intelligence and education.

 

[martybegan]

i know it makes you idiots feel better about your lack of education and knowledge to say that. but no worries, loon.

i really miss when this board had decent people on it. there used to be place for decent discussion. you trash mouth loons are useless

You are in here arguing gun law, yet didn't even know that Miller established legal precedence of ownership as an individual right. Instead you spewed idiocy from KOS or ThinkProgress about Scalia.

Look Jilie, I am not a lawyer. I do not have a JD. I have an MBA, which required me to take 6 courses on law, contract litigation, tort, labor law, etc. I took law classes from the standpoint of a business expert, not as a path to a legal practice, as one professor put it, so we would know when lawyers were lying to us. Even so, it is painfully clear that I have VASTLY more knowledge of the law and legal proceedings than you do.

Clearly you have no grasp of law or legal procedures.

and from someone who's never been in a courtroom except as a party, i'll take that for what it is, a continued pathetic effort on the part of rightwingnut bullies to try to make themselves feel better about their lack of intelligence and education.

I'll put my degrees and IQ against yours any day of the ******* week.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Miller was granted standing in his argument that the 2nd protected his right to own the weapon in question.
This necessarily means that the court saw the 2nd as a protection of a right of the individual, not tied to service in the militia.
And so, while Miller does not literally express the sentiment, in practice it states exactly that.

Correct.
Jillian would do well to take a class in basic law or attempt to gain an understanding of how American Jurisprudence works.

Jillian claims to be an attorney.
Yeah, I laughed too.

i know it makes you idiots feel better about your lack of education and knowledge to say that. but no worries, loon.
i really miss when this board had decent people on it. there used to be place for decent discussion. you trash mouth loons are useless

Your demonstrable inability to post anything of substance, especially in response to criticisms and questions about your positions, speaks more loudly than any claim I, or anyone else, could ever make about you.

you have never said anything of substance to discuss.

Keep lying to yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

Aside form the fact that you, unsurprisingly, didn't address what I said in response to your question....
Yes I do, a right that I have exercised any number of times.
You have the right to exercise all of your rights absent restrictions that do not pass a rational basis test, a test that any unenforceable law cannot pass.

the 2nd amendment was, for hundreds of years, found to have nothing to do with a private right of gun ownership. the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

I did answer you. I pointed out that what you are claiming as a right is not a right.

for hundreds of years gun grabbing lunatics weren't around trying to take away peoples rights. that's a modern day disease.

Nah... check your gun at the sheriff's office when you get to town was not uncommon even in the old west...

reality is irrelevant to someone who defines himself by his gun.

Oh look... another anti-gun loon that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.