CPAC. The gun free zone where you complain about gun free zones

[The Derp]

OK, so you only support abortions when something is "wrong with the fetus?"

No, I was just answering your idiotic point that abortions don't save anyone. Clearly, that was wrong. YOU were wrong. Will you admit that you posted without thinking your point through? I doubt it. You don't strike me as the responsible type...

That was made up law by the SCOTUS. Abortions aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore by the 10th amendment they have no say either way on abortions

LOL! No, it wasn't a law made up by SCOTUS, it was a striking down of your bans on abortion. You don't seem to know anything that you're struggling to discuss here.

 

[kaz]

OK, so you only support abortions when something is "wrong with the fetus?"

No, I was just answering your idiotic point that abortions don't save anyone. Clearly, that was wrong. YOU were wrong. Will you admit that you posted without thinking your point through? I doubt it. You don't strike me as the responsible type...

LOL, not really self aware, are you?

"No, I was just answering your idiotic point that abortions don't save anyone," proving again why hyperbole is such a terrible argument? Nice job on that

That was made up law by the SCOTUS. Abortions aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore by the 10th amendment they have no say either way on abortions

LOL! No, it wasn't a law made up by SCOTUS, it was a striking down of your bans on abortion. You don't seem to know anything that you're struggling to discuss here.

I support abortion rights. They aren't my laws. You're used to being wrong given how frequently you do it, aren't you?

You're just showing that you can't read the Constitution, you just believe it says whatever the **** you want it to

 

[The Derp]

LOL, not really self aware, are you?

You argued abortion doesn't save lives; clearly it does.

So you were wrong. Why won't you just admit that you sloppily rushed through a hastily-composed response? We can't move on until you own that shit.

"No, I was just answering your idiotic point that abortions don't save anyone," proving again why hyperbole is such a terrible argument? Nice job on that

But that was your argument. Literally. You literally said "abortions don't protect people". Those are your words. But they do, often. So you said something wrong, I pointed it out, and you want me to apologize? **** off, idiot.

I support abortion rights. They aren't my laws. You're used to being wrong given how frequently you do it, aren't you?

Well, you don't seem to know anything about it.

You're just showing that you can't read the Constitution, you just believe it says whatever the **** you want it to

You're showing you don't understand SCOTUS decisions. Which I can see; you're not a bright person to begin with...

 

[kaz]

LOL, not really self aware, are you?

You argued abortion doesn't save lives; clearly it does.

So you were wrong. Why won't you just admit that you sloppily rushed through a hastily-composed response? We can't move on until you own that shit.

"No, I was just answering your idiotic point that abortions don't save anyone," proving again why hyperbole is such a terrible argument? Nice job on that

But that was your argument. Literally. You literally said "abortions don't protect people". Those are your words. But they do, often. So you said something wrong, I pointed it out, and you want me to apologize? **** off, idiot.

I support abortion rights. They aren't my laws. You're used to being wrong given how frequently you do it, aren't you?

Well, you don't seem to know anything about it.

You're just showing that you can't read the Constitution, you just believe it says whatever the **** you want it to

You're showing you don't understand SCOTUS decisions. Which I can see; you're not a bright person to begin with...

Where does it say abortions are Constitutionally protected in the Constitution?

And how did the Founders manage to write that when abortions were clearly not on their mind if you know any history at all when they wrote it?

 

[The Derp]

Where does it say abortions are Constitutionally protected in the Constitution?

It's covered by the 14th Amendment, per the Roe v. Wade decision:

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); id. at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result);​

Time to join the rest of 1973.

And how did the Founders manage to write that when abortions were clearly not on their mind if you know any history at all when they wrote it?

They didn't. But the 14th Amendment serves this purpose. And automatic and semi-automatic weapons weren't on the Founders minds' when they wrote the 2nd Amendment either.

 

[Dragonlady]

False equivalency

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

 

[kaz]

Where does it say abortions are Constitutionally protected in the Constitution?

It's covered by the 14th Amendment, per the Roe v. Wade decision:

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); id. at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result);​

Time to join the rest of 1973.

And how did the Founders manage to write that when abortions were clearly not on their mind if you know any history at all when they wrote it?

They didn't. But the 14th Amendment serves this purpose. And automatic and semi-automatic weapons weren't on the Founders minds' when they wrote the 2nd Amendment either.

Saying someone's opinion isn't quoting the Constitution. Show the text IN the Constitution that says enabling abortion is a federal power. The Constitution is an enumerated document, so where is it?

 

[cnm]

CPAC. The gun free zone where you complain about gun free zones

No need to be cruel about it.

 

[conserveguy877]

Clearly the OP is so delusional not knowing the gun laws where CPAC was held.

 

[kaz]

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics

You wear your bias and bigotry on your sleeve

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

The issue with background checks is that they are designed to not be effective. I will support them if we arrest people who fail them. What is stupid is your system where the answer comes back no and your plan is that if they go to 50 stores they will get 50 noes. It's a stupid plan. The best way to stop a criminal is keep them in jail. But stopping the crime isn't your goal, it's discouraging legal sales, not illegal ones

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

You're restricting them. That isn't the problem and it solves nothing

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

Taking our guns is taking our guns! Um ... yes ... what about that don't you understand?

So just to be clear, you think it's up to government to decide when you can exercise your other Constitutional rights? Explain how that works

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

Of course, anyone who thinks differently than you is parroting someone. You know that because you're parroting Democrats.

And you agree with Democrats on every issue and you're not even American if I remember correctly. Then you talk about "parroting." What a joke you are

 

[martybegan]

Equal protection UNDER THE LAW, which means government can't deny equal protection.

Jesus ******* Christ, you are a true know nothing.

It means private business can't deny equal protection either, which is why it's illegal for a private business to discriminate based on race.

All that writing going in circles while missing the point entirely.

You aren't making any points. You are just making excuses for why your self-contradictory argument isn't hypocrisy. You said you have "a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment"...those are your words. Now you're saying your "strict interpretation" is not so strict, is flexible, and is open to exceptions and excuse making. And if that's the case, then your "strict interpretation" is really just bullshit parameters you arbitrarily set for yourself, within which you wiggle around so you can save face.

A "strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment" would mean you think gun rights are universal, that there shouldn't be any limitations to ownership, and anyone should be allowed to carry their weapon wherever they want. THAT is a "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment", not this wishy-washy, self-conflicting bullshit you're vomiting up here. If you're saying it's OK for a business to deny your carrying of your weapon on their premises, then as a "strict interpreter" of the Second Amendment, you would have to argue those businesses are violating your Constitutional rights, and CPAC are hypocrites for banning guns.

You are just making shit up at this point.Actually what was happening during Jim Crow was that local governments passed LAWS making businesses discriminate even if they didn't want to (most did).The Civil Rights Act flitted on the border of unconstitutionality, but that is another discussion.

So you think the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional, why? Because you want to be able to discriminate against anyone for any basis. Why do you want to discriminate? Because you're a garbage person. Which has been my point this entire time.

So a business can't discriminate based on the ability to pay?

equal protection under the law is extended via local PA laws, which I have issue with the way they are applied sometimes.

strict doesn't mean absolute.

I said it borders on it, due to sometimes PA's being extended to something that isn't a PA. that isn't actually an issue with the federal civil rights law, but State PA laws inspired by it.

 

[martybegan]

False equivalency

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

 

[martybegan]

It's secured because they made sure via checks that no one unauthorized brought in a gun, and had the means to respond immediately if someone did.

Now, that's excuse and exception-making. That's not what you said before. So here's a perfect example of you moving the goalposts on what you said before.

that's what I have been saying the whole time, no goalposts moved.

 

[martybegan]

NYC requires it, easy to find out if you have the google skills of a 5 year old.

No, they don't require that. This is you making shit up.

No waiting period, and a $340 permit fee, not the $600 you claimed. So you exaggerated. Big surprise.

They said it could take up to six months to process, but that's not a waiting period. Also, the waiting period doesn't prevent you from getting the gun.

Do you really think they spend all that time doing searches? LOL, it sits on a desk for 4 months and then they just stamp it when they realize the person isn't going to give up.

If your argument is about the slow pace of bureaucracy, then why is it that you want to cut government spending?! This is what cuts to government spending do; they slow down bureaucracy.

And it doesn't matter on your last point, a right is a right is a right.
And after all, the person will eventually get the abortion, wasn't that your point about infringement before?Dumbass.

Sometimes abortions need to be performed for immediate medical reasons. What those reasons are is between the doctor and the patient, not you or the state.

New York City I said, not new York state.

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

and "process" is a waiting period, they are just ******* liars about it, something you should know well.

Bureaucracy speed is a function of too much size, not too little. Layers and layers.

I feel threatened and want a handgun to defend myself, will the cops put a car outside my apartment for the 3-6 months it will take?

 

[martybegan]

The only one doing twisting is you, My logic is sound, you keep making assumptions that have no basis in reality.

What assumption am I making? Please, articulate.

I don't believe you know what "assumption" means. I haven't made any assumption. You're the one who said you have "a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment". But then you go and make excuses and exceptions, which would mean your interpretation isn't strict.

So why are you saying it is when it isn't?

You assume strict means absolute.

You assume private groups need to follow the same rules as government

Strict interpretation finds NYC's laws to be infringement.

 

[martybegan]

Limited within a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only the most unobtrusive regulations allowed.

So that seems awfully subjective, vague, and ambiguous. Limited, how? What constitutes obtrusive?

Let me ask you a question, NYC requires 3-6 months of waiting, and paying $600 or so in fees just to keep a revolver in your own apartment.Is that infringement or not?

No, because you're still able to get a gun. Your ability to get a gun was not infringed. If it was, you wouldn't be able to get a gun at all. Because "infringe" means what it means; "actively break the terms of" and/or "act so as to limit or undermine". You getting the gun in the end doesn't mean you were undermined or limited, nor does it mean any terms were broken.

No issue with parks. If libraries want to be gun free, then they create a secure space and have armed guards onsite at all times.

So you don't really support individual gun rights because if you did, you'd support an individuals right to carry a gun wherever they want, and any private business that refuses you to bring a gun in violates your rights. So that's why your "public places" argument is a load of horseshit. If you're arguing that it's a Constitutional right that you get to carry your gun wherever you want, then that means a private business is violating your rights if they ban guns. So CPAC violated Conservatives' gun rights.

Public transit is a tough one, due to the confined nature of most of it.

Why should that matter?

If some place doesn't want to me bring a gun with me, if they are a government facility or agency, or a public space, they need to take responsibility to making sure everyone follows the same rules, and there is security in place to replace my own defense ability.In Airports there is secure areas and security, in courts and most public buildings the same thing.

So your gun rights aren't universal or Constitutionally-protected if you're saying a private business can infringe on what you also describe as a civil right.

But I am limited arbitrarily by some government agency which delays the process.
So how about we impose a 2 week wait period and $100 in fees to get an abortion?

Or a fee and a wait period to vote?

It is infringement, and you not seeing that tells me all about you.

Constitutional rights are not absolute, you can't yell "fire in a crowded theater" and expect the 1st to protect you.

Because I am not an absolutist.

Again you are dealing with absolutes because it's probably the only thing you can understand.

Try to keep up.

False comparison fallacies.

Unlike laws regulating the right to privacy and the right to vote, laws regulating firearms are not subject to a heightened level of judicial review.

The comparison works when you look into the reason for both laws. NYC's gun law isn't about safety, it's about making the process so burdensome that few people will try.

My abortion example uses the same logic, make it more annoying so less people get one.

 

[martybegan]

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU ******* ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

 

[HappyJoy]

CPAC wasn't a gun free zone?

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU ******* ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

 

[hadit]

right wing phonies . Blaming gun free zones is a favorite diversion of the gun nuts .

Yet CPAC was gun free! Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Trump trashes gun-free schools at CPAC 2018 -- where people aren't allowed to bring in guns

The DNC convention. A place you have to present ID to get into where you complain about efforts to require an ID to vote for president.

 

[martybegan]

CPAC was a secure zone.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

What most people call "gun free zones" is just someone putting up a sign alluding to the statement, without doing anything to assure the location is indeed "gun free"

A secure area couples a request for no guns in civilian hands in the area with the means to assure that is the case, plus people able to respond to anyone with a gun trying to enter or in the area.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU ******* ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?