Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[eflatminor]

But I do go for common sense gun laws.

What exactly is it about "...shall not be infringed" that is confusing to you? You're allowed to not care about your rights, but you do understand what you "go for" is infringing on others rights, yes?

What exactly is it about "...the Second Amendment is not unlimited" that is confusing to you?

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, where such limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment in no manner infringe on the right to possess a firearm.

And where does it say that in the document. Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

Tyrant.

 

[daveman]

I have had the "pleasure" of taking away guns from a mentally ill relative, hiding them (in the hedges on the property and not in my car, since he could fight me for the keys) and warning the police, all to prevent a suicide by cop. I have some experience with guns in the hands of people who should never have had them.

If people insist on carrying guns in public, while not being members of law enforcement or the legitimate National Guard of their state, would it not be fair to require such people to wear some sort of badge or other openly-displayed symbol so that members of the public could choose whether to interact with them or not?

I don't want to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger with a loaded firearm and I was not warned. If someone like that is in the same aisle as me in a supermarket, I just might move to another aisle. If in a restaurant, I might ask to be seated elsewhere.

Hey, that's a great idea! Maybe you could make the symbol a six-pointed star.

 

[daveman]

It's time to thin the herd once again.

Yes, that's the standard leftist response to disagreement.

You people sure do like filling mass graves, don't you, Comrade?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

YOU and the 14 others who make this claim are tellers of BIG LIES.

 

[Rustic]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

YOU and the 14 others who make this claim are tellers of BIG LIES.

 

[bripat9643]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

YOU and the 14 others who make this claim are tellers of BIG LIES.

Anyone who isn't brain damaged knows those claims are facts. Lefties always give themselves away.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet you refuse to support the rewriting and updating the 2nd amendment that would prevent that from happening. You can stop crying in your beer anytime and correct that. But until you do, the Supreme Court will make the gun laws along with the states.. Imagine that, if Congress won't do their friggin jobs the states and the supreme court does it. Wow, exactly like it's supposed to be.

It is the job of Congress, the Supreme Court, and all other parts of government, above all else, to uphold the Constitution. Everywhere that any part of government establishes laws or policies that are contrary to the Constitution, this is an act of corruption and malfeasance.

If you think that any part of the Constitution is outdated or wrong, there is a process for amending it. It's odd that I rarely ever hear of those who hate the Second Amendment,and the right that it affirms, speaking of using this process to legitimately overturn the Second Amendment. They only ever advocate various parts of government blatantly violating the Second Amendment.

Surely, you have to know that if the policy you want can only be enacted illegitimately, in violation of the Constitution, rather than legitimately by amending it, that your cause is itself illegitimate.

You said absolutely nothing. Try again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

YOU and the 14 others who make this claim are tellers of BIG LIES.

Please don't excuse Rustic, he's a damn liar who should never be trusted.

The problem inherent in his past claim that "gun grabbers" seek to confiscate all guns in private hands, is self evidently a lack of common sense. There are more guns in the hands of private citizens than there are private citizens, unless Probable Cause exists, LE cannot remove a citizen from his or her gun.

It would be impractical, expensive and dangerous to do so, and rational people understand that; that the BIG LIARS don't suggests that they are irrational as well as damn liars.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But I do go for common sense gun laws.

What exactly is it about "...shall not be infringed" that is confusing to you? You're allowed to not care about your rights, but you do understand what you "go for" is infringing on others rights, yes?

Okay, here we go again.

The End amendment has all but been legislated out of existance. Due to the first 2/3rds, the National Guard Act of 1917 pretty well trashed that part. That part of it needs to be taken out. Not just rewritten but taken completely out.

Now, about the last part. This is the part you and others like you keep repeating over and over.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We outgrew that as of 1859 when the first Walker Colt was introduced. If you know anything about the real Western History you would see that the word infringed no longer applied. And we outgrew the word "Arms" in the process. Public safety became a real problem and the first Gun Regs were introduced in 1871 in western towns and cities. I won't go into why or how but they made some pretty drastic (for the time) choices and then upheld those actions. You can't change the facts that we DO need some firearms regulations these days as much as we needed them in 1871.

So now we get it to read

the right of the people to keep and bear Firearms, shall not be infringed.

It's still not right. There are classes of weapons that no sane person will ever attempt to own, buy or operate in a civilian world. I don't believe you need a M-2 50 cal machine gun bolted on the back of your Pickup Truck. I don't think you need a Nuclear Weapon of any kind. I don't think you need a surplus M-60 Nato 7.62 Belt Fed Machine gun also mounted on that already overloaded half ton. (btw, you can buy a M-60 but you can't buy it's replacement, the M-240). You tell me how it can be rewritten so it makes sense. In such a short form, I just don't see a way.

Okay, you want to keep hammering us with the 2nd amendment over and over and you want to use it EXACTLY as it is written. Sounds good to me. Here is is one more time.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You want a literal meaning exactly as worded? Sure, let's do that. You have the right to wear sleaveless shirts and display both or your Manly Muscles. You want it verbatim, fine, but that is exactly what it says.

Now, do you agree that we need to upgrade it? I certainly do.

You've expressed profound ignorance as to the meaning and purpose of the amendment. So, no, I do not believe anything need be "upgraded". You can't just change the meaning of the words as they were written at the time. What the government has, the people shall have. What you think another "needs" is irrelevant.

You may not mean to, but you're supporting tyranny. Shame.

I just presented the verbatim, word for word of the 2nd amendment. Or at least the last part of it that you keep bringing up. You can't change the fact that it can be interpreted many ways and is being interpreted many ways. You want us to interpret it the way you say, I suggest you get it changed to be specific so that there can be no need to interpret it. Laws need to read specifics. Any other way and you end up with a Legal mess on your hands. And you have the same support as the Gun Grabbers so most of us don't listen to either groups views. So we make common sense gun laws. And going back to the OP, I can go into any gun shop and leave within 15 minutes with any gun that they have to sell on the shelf. If I choose to own a full auto, it just takes a lot longer but I can still buy it and take it home. I really don't see too much abridging done on firearms under common sense gun regs. I have freedoms and I don't see anyone successful in abridging those freedoms. Well, you are suggesting that some of my freedoms should be abridged. And you don't understand that. Too bad. But the common sense players are winning and when we win, everyone wins.

If you read the words of the men that wrote the amendment (Federalist Papers, letters, speeches, etc), their meaning and the reasons and motivations for what they wrote, there is absolutely no room for varied interpretation. It means what it means. The government shall not infringe.

Stop with the tyranny. You do not know what's best for others.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not once have I ever advocated taking away your right to wear sleaveless shirts.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's time to thin the herd once again.

Yes, that's the standard leftist response to disagreement.

You people sure do like filling mass graves, don't you, Comrade?

Are you volunteering for the next cull?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

YOU and the 14 others who make this claim are tellers of BIG LIES.

Anyone who isn't brain damaged knows those claims are facts. Lefties always give themselves away.

So we are ignoring facts. Well here is the last part of the 2nd amendment.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

At no time have I ever denied your right to wear sleaveless shirts.

 

[Lysistrata]

I have had the "pleasure" of taking away guns from a mentally ill relative, hiding them (in the hedges on the property and not in my car, since he could fight me for the keys) and warning the police, all to prevent a suicide by cop. I have some experience with guns in the hands of people who should never have had them.

If people insist on carrying guns in public, while not being members of law enforcement or the legitimate National Guard of their state, would it not be fair to require such people to wear some sort of badge or other openly-displayed symbol so that members of the public could choose whether to interact with them or not?

I don't want to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger with a loaded firearm and I was not warned. If someone like that is in the same aisle as me in a supermarket, I just might move to another aisle. If in a restaurant, I might ask to be seated elsewhere.

Hey, that's a great idea! Maybe you could make the symbol a six-pointed star.

View attachment 260593

What does this have to with a person's religion? What does this have to with being of the Jewish faith? I am not Jewish. But I think that people of all religions would want to keep themselves and their families safe. Why can't all people, of every faith, know who is carrying a loaded gun?

 

[BrokeLoser]

My father had guns and we shot them. He sighted for me when I was under ten. He never flourished them on street corners and cautioned me never, ever to point a gun unless I seriously had to use it. But that was back in the time that Americans were civilized and responsible people.

Now we are dealing with animals who have rapid-fire weapons of war that they prance around with on street corners, people who carry loaded guns while gathered on street corners, and in public places: restaurants, movie theaters, the public streets, and assert on the internet that they are "locked and loaded." Now that we are "gifted" with these uncivilized tribal louts, we have to deal with guns in a different and more restrictive manner.

How about that guy who murdered a co-worker the other day when he was getting out of his truck. WTF was the truck driver doing with a loaded gun on a worksite?

LefTard Logic:
“I love and cherish my freedom and liberty...now please Father Government protect me from myself and deprive me of my rights.”

I can’t make this shit up...only in that backwards world of LibTardia can you find this level of retardation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

YOU and the 14 others who make this claim are tellers of BIG LIES.

You can have as many of those type of guns your little heart desires.

 

[daveman]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

-------------------------------------- it is WE and my People against against YOU .

Now you are talking for We the People. Well, cupcake, We the People in this state adopted common sense gun regs. If you are speaking for We the People then you would be taking a different stance. To you, the fringe, small vocal group you identify with is the only ones that should be heard and you should control all others. Newsflash, cupcake, you aren't speaking for We the People.

This post alone proves you don't understand the United States.

You support the majority taking rights away from the minority.

Historically, that hasn't worked out well for anybody.

 

[Rustic]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

YOU and the 14 others who make this claim are tellers of BIG LIES.

You can have as many of those type of guns your little heart desires.

 

[daveman]

What exactly is it about "...shall not be infringed" that is confusing to you? You're allowed to not care about your rights, but you do understand what you "go for" is infringing on others rights, yes?

Okay, here we go again.

The End amendment has all but been legislated out of existance. Due to the first 2/3rds, the National Guard Act of 1917 pretty well trashed that part. That part of it needs to be taken out. Not just rewritten but taken completely out.

Now, about the last part. This is the part you and others like you keep repeating over and over.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We outgrew that as of 1859 when the first Walker Colt was introduced. If you know anything about the real Western History you would see that the word infringed no longer applied. And we outgrew the word "Arms" in the process. Public safety became a real problem and the first Gun Regs were introduced in 1871 in western towns and cities. I won't go into why or how but they made some pretty drastic (for the time) choices and then upheld those actions. You can't change the facts that we DO need some firearms regulations these days as much as we needed them in 1871.

So now we get it to read

the right of the people to keep and bear Firearms, shall not be infringed.

It's still not right. There are classes of weapons that no sane person will ever attempt to own, buy or operate in a civilian world. I don't believe you need a M-2 50 cal machine gun bolted on the back of your Pickup Truck. I don't think you need a Nuclear Weapon of any kind. I don't think you need a surplus M-60 Nato 7.62 Belt Fed Machine gun also mounted on that already overloaded half ton. (btw, you can buy a M-60 but you can't buy it's replacement, the M-240). You tell me how it can be rewritten so it makes sense. In such a short form, I just don't see a way.

Okay, you want to keep hammering us with the 2nd amendment over and over and you want to use it EXACTLY as it is written. Sounds good to me. Here is is one more time.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You want a literal meaning exactly as worded? Sure, let's do that. You have the right to wear sleaveless shirts and display both or your Manly Muscles. You want it verbatim, fine, but that is exactly what it says.

Now, do you agree that we need to upgrade it? I certainly do.

You've expressed profound ignorance as to the meaning and purpose of the amendment. So, no, I do not believe anything need be "upgraded". You can't just change the meaning of the words as they were written at the time. What the government has, the people shall have. What you think another "needs" is irrelevant.

You may not mean to, but you're supporting tyranny. Shame.

I just presented the verbatim, word for word of the 2nd amendment. Or at least the last part of it that you keep bringing up. You can't change the fact that it can be interpreted many ways and is being interpreted many ways. You want us to interpret it the way you say, I suggest you get it changed to be specific so that there can be no need to interpret it. Laws need to read specifics. Any other way and you end up with a Legal mess on your hands. And you have the same support as the Gun Grabbers so most of us don't listen to either groups views. So we make common sense gun laws. And going back to the OP, I can go into any gun shop and leave within 15 minutes with any gun that they have to sell on the shelf. If I choose to own a full auto, it just takes a lot longer but I can still buy it and take it home. I really don't see too much abridging done on firearms under common sense gun regs. I have freedoms and I don't see anyone successful in abridging those freedoms. Well, you are suggesting that some of my freedoms should be abridged. And you don't understand that. Too bad. But the common sense players are winning and when we win, everyone wins.

If you read the words of the men that wrote the amendment (Federalist Papers, letters, speeches, etc), their meaning and the reasons and motivations for what they wrote, there is absolutely no room for varied interpretation. It means what it means. The government shall not infringe.

Stop with the tyranny. You do not know what's best for others.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not once have I ever advocated taking away your right to wear sleaveless shirts.

As I've pointed out to you, "bear" and "bare" are not interchangeable.

And you spelled "sleeveless" wrong.

You can stop pretending you're clever now, Comrade.

 

[daveman]

It's time to thin the herd once again.

Yes, that's the standard leftist response to disagreement.

You people sure do like filling mass graves, don't you, Comrade?

Are you volunteering for the next cull?

Are you volunteering to be the culler, Comrade?

Doubtful. Internet Revolutionaries tend to be pussies.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't want to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger with a loaded firearm and I was not warned. If someone like that is in the same aisle as me in a supermarket, I just might move to another aisle. If in a restaurant, I might ask to be seated elsewhere.

Durable solid digestive waste.

You don't get to deny other people their essential rights, just because you don't want to be around people exercising those rights.

Your complaint here has no more legitimacy than someone complaining that he doesn't want to to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger who happens to adhere to a religion or political ideology that you find disagreeable, or who has some ethnic ancestry that you don't like.

Nobody is under any obligation to give up any of their rights, just so that paranoid cretins such as yourself can feel comfortable in public.

 

[daveman]

I have had the "pleasure" of taking away guns from a mentally ill relative, hiding them (in the hedges on the property and not in my car, since he could fight me for the keys) and warning the police, all to prevent a suicide by cop. I have some experience with guns in the hands of people who should never have had them.

If people insist on carrying guns in public, while not being members of law enforcement or the legitimate National Guard of their state, would it not be fair to require such people to wear some sort of badge or other openly-displayed symbol so that members of the public could choose whether to interact with them or not?

I don't want to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger with a loaded firearm and I was not warned. If someone like that is in the same aisle as me in a supermarket, I just might move to another aisle. If in a restaurant, I might ask to be seated elsewhere.

Hey, that's a great idea! Maybe you could make the symbol a six-pointed star.

View attachment 260593

What does this have to with a person's religion? What does this have to with being of the Jewish faith? I am not Jewish. But I think that people of all religions would want to keep themselves and their families safe. Why can't all people, of every faith, know who is carrying a loaded gun?

Wow, what a moron you are.

First of all, whether anyone around you is legally carrying is none of your business. They are far less statistically likely to do harm than illegal gun owners.

Your fear is irrational.