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

[Rustic]

Lol
Well to get rid of the Second Amendment here’s what you have to do...
In the Maps look like this, and Trump will most likely be able to nominate two maybe three more justices for the Supreme Court. So go ahead and pound sand.

2016 presidential election

You are delusional. I didn't say anything about getting rid of the 2nd amendment. I said all gun sales should go through a background check. Please try to keep up.

Lol
You’re not fooling anybody, we all know you anti-gun nutters want to get rid of the second amendment altogether

That's the desperate paranoid fear mongering that the gun nuts rely on.

Universal background checks/firearm registration equates to firearm confiscation... gun control never has been about guns, it’s always been about control. Socialism 101

No it doesn't, prove it.

Every dictator disarms the people they rule over... socialism 101

 

[HappyJoy]

For all gun sales, you've already been around the block several times on this and still haven't come up with anything worth much.

Show us the law where it says that background checks are necessary on private sales?

Unless you believe that there should be no background checks on any sales, the answer to your question should be obvious.

There is no background checks on private sales, it’s the law of the land... rightly so

So, when background checks are required by law on all sales then it will also be the law of the land...rightly so.

That is the extent of your argument and it fails miserably.

There is not any requirement of background checks on private sales, it’s the law of the land...

Yes we've established some states (not all) do not require a background check on private sales. When that changes you won't even have that measly argument.

Legalized abortion is also the law of the land, I didn't realize you were pro choice.

 

[HappyJoy]

You are delusional. I didn't say anything about getting rid of the 2nd amendment. I said all gun sales should go through a background check. Please try to keep up.

Lol
You’re not fooling anybody, we all know you anti-gun nutters want to get rid of the second amendment altogether

That's the desperate paranoid fear mongering that the gun nuts rely on.

Universal background checks/firearm registration equates to firearm confiscation... gun control never has been about guns, it’s always been about control. Socialism 101

No it doesn't, prove it.

Every dictator disarms the people they rule over... socialism 101

Please try to stay on topic. We're talking about background checks. You can't even stay on the right topic to attempt to prove your point, you're a delirious, paranoid wingnut and you can't find away to make a rational point.

 

[Rustic]

Show us the law where it says that background checks are necessary on private sales?

Unless you believe that there should be no background checks on any sales, the answer to your question should be obvious.

There is no background checks on private sales, it’s the law of the land... rightly so

So, when background checks are required by law on all sales then it will also be the law of the land...rightly so.

That is the extent of your argument and it fails miserably.

There is not any requirement of background checks on private sales, it’s the law of the land...

Yes we've established some states (not all) do not require a background check on private sales. When that changes you won't even have that measly argument.

Legalized abortion is also the law of the land, I didn't realize you were pro choice.

It’s the law of the land, there is no need for background checks with private sales and rightly so

Abortion is none of the federal governments business abortion should be legal at anytime for any reason be absolutely legal as far as the federal government is concerned... it’s a states issue. the federal government has no moral authority on the matter

 

[Rustic]

Lol
You’re not fooling anybody, we all know you anti-gun nutters want to get rid of the second amendment altogether

That's the desperate paranoid fear mongering that the gun nuts rely on.

Universal background checks/firearm registration equates to firearm confiscation... gun control never has been about guns, it’s always been about control. Socialism 101

No it doesn't, prove it.

Every dictator disarms the people they rule over... socialism 101

Please try to stay on topic. We're talking about background checks. You can't even stay on the right topic to attempt to prove your point, you're a delirious, paranoid wingnut and you can't find away to make a rational point.

You still have not answered the question, what is the law that requires background checks on private sales?

 

[HappyJoy]

Unless you believe that there should be no background checks on any sales, the answer to your question should be obvious.

There is no background checks on private sales, it’s the law of the land... rightly so

So, when background checks are required by law on all sales then it will also be the law of the land...rightly so.

That is the extent of your argument and it fails miserably.

There is not any requirement of background checks on private sales, it’s the law of the land...

Yes we've established some states (not all) do not require a background check on private sales. When that changes you won't even have that measly argument.

Legalized abortion is also the law of the land, I didn't realize you were pro choice.

It’s the law of the land, there is no need for background checks with private sales and rightly so

That's not an argument.

Abortion is none of the federal governments business abortion should be legal at anytime for any reason be absolutely legal as far as the federal government is concerned... it’s a states issue. the federal government has no moral authority on the matter

Clearly you're an idiot. It's the federal government that ensures abortion is legal in conservative states. And the federal government obviously has a stake in the legality of abortion since it's tied to our constitutional rights. Or, I could just say it's the 'law of the land'. Apparently that line means something. Moron.

 

[Rustic]

There is no background checks on private sales, it’s the law of the land... rightly so

So, when background checks are required by law on all sales then it will also be the law of the land...rightly so.

That is the extent of your argument and it fails miserably.

There is not any requirement of background checks on private sales, it’s the law of the land...

Yes we've established some states (not all) do not require a background check on private sales. When that changes you won't even have that measly argument.

Legalized abortion is also the law of the land, I didn't realize you were pro choice.

It’s the law of the land, there is no need for background checks with private sales and rightly so

That's not an argument.

Abortion is none of the federal governments business abortion should be legal at anytime for any reason be absolutely legal as far as the federal government is concerned... it’s a states issue. the federal government has no moral authority on the matter

Clearly you're an idiot. It's the federal government that ensures abortion is legal in conservative states. And the federal government obviously has a stake in the legality of abortion since it's tied to our constitutional rights. Or, I could just say it's the 'law of the land'. Apparently that line means something. Moron.

Lol
Yes, abortion is the easy way out…
2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[The Derp]

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

That's not what we're talking about here. We are specifically talking about your "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" and how that runs in contradiction to your other position; which is that a private business can violate your Constitutional rights if they want. Now since Civil Rights are enshrined by the 14th Amendment, and it's illegal to violate those rights, according to your "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment", wouldn't a private business be violating those 2nd Amendment rights by refusing to allow you to carry a gun on their premises?

I guess your problem is that you don't quite know what interpretation of the 2nd Amendment you have. I believe you said you have "a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment" because that phrase is deliberately vague and allows you wiggle room to operate within the broad parameters you set. Just another version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, where you continually move the goalposts as to what your "strict interpretation" entails.

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

Of course you do because you want to be able to discriminate against the people you hate; whether it's their religion, race, gender, or sexuality. You want to be able to discriminate and not face any penalty for doing so. That's because you're inherently an irresponsible person who has never been held accountable for anything in your pointless life, and you think you're entitled to be a bigoted loser because it's what you want. Well, you're not entitled to anything, not even your opinion. Entitlements are earned, and you haven't earned jack shit.

strict doesn't mean absolute.

We don't know what "strict" means to you because you haven't articulated what your "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" actually means and entails. You just said it because you think it makes you look clever. All it does is make you look insecure in your own argument since that phrase is designed to allow maximum shifting of the goalposts. So you can make excuses, exceptions, and allowances for a self-contradicting argument that you dress up as a "strict interpretation" when it's really just an ambiguous belief system that is ever-changing, depending on how your shitty argument is faring at any given time.

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.

So again, here's an example of you being a squish in what is ultimately an ambiguous, vague, general, and insecure argument. You just change the definition of your "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" to suit whatever bullshit argument you're making about it at any given time. What a fraud.

 

[eflatminor]

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

Uh, hey, genius...CPAC was held at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center, a Marriot owned facility. It's the facility's owners, not the people who rent it out, who declared the venue a gun free zone. They did this long before CPAC showed up.

Nice try Nancy, but fail.

 

[The Derp]

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

http://newyorkcityguns.com/getting-a-nyc-handgun-permit/

Again, nothing in there about a 6 months waiting period; nothing in there about a $600 fee. So two things you claimed were true turned out not to be true. So you lied by exaggerating your claim. You do that frequently; it's a pretty bad habit of yours. Secondly, that link you provided isn't from New York City (NYC websites end in .gov), but rather a 3rd Party gun fanatic site. So you didn't even cite the New York City statute, and what you did cite didn't support any of your previous claims.

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

And here is the perfect example of you moving the goalposts in order to defend what was already a bullshit argument. The process isn't a waiting period, isn't billed as a waiting period, isn't advertised as such. You're stretching the definition to make up for the fact deficit in your pathetically weak argument.

It's a long process because you assholes cut government spending which slows down bureaucracy. Then you whine about the slow pace of bureaucracy which was caused by your zeal to cut government spending. So long processing periods are the result of that. How about for once you take some responsibility for yourself and what you believe?

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

No idiot, it's a function of personnel. The fewer personnel you have, the slower things are going to move. So when you cut spending, you cut personnel. That's how it works. Like I said before, you are so whiny and entitled and you've done nothing to earn the right to be either.

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?

If you feel so threatened in today's society that you need a gun, then it's your mental illness that needs treatment because you are clearly a paranoid person, and paranoia is a sign of mental illness. Have you done the responsible thing and gotten yourself checked for mental illness? **** NO. You're just a lazy, whiny, entitled bullshitter.

 

[The Derp]

You assume strict means absolute.

Not sure what "strict" means ot you because you haven't actually articulated it. Merely saying you have "a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" means nothing if you don't go on to articulate what that means specifically. You avoid that by spitting out random, generalized, ambiguous, vague nonsense about your ever-changing position. As I argued before, that's by design on your part; you know you have a pathetically weak and bullshit argument, but you can't admit as such on a message board. So instead, you come up with platitudes that are weak on substance, and get all whiny and bitchy when someone points it out.

Doesn't sound to me like you have any idea what you position is; all you seem to be concerned about is how people perceive you and your argument on these anonymous boards...which is so insecure.

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

You don't seem to know or understand how laws work. Maybe because you're not an American? Maybe you're just a Russian pretending to be an American to sow discontent.

YStrict interpretation finds NYC's laws to be infringement.

Again, "strict interpretation" here means, "I just made some shit up off the top of my head, set arbitrary standards that I will change later on, all so I can make myself feel better about being a mouth-breathing know-nothing."

Also, what standard are you using to determine that NYC is infringing on your gun rights, even though you still get the gun in the end? No standard other than the flimsy, ambiguous, ever-changing standard you invented on the spot.

 

[martybegan]

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

That's not what we're talking about here. We are specifically talking about your "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" and how that runs in contradiction to your other position; which is that a private business can violate your Constitutional rights if they want. Now since Civil Rights are enshrined by the 14th Amendment, and it's illegal to violate those rights, according to your "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment", wouldn't a private business be violating those 2nd Amendment rights by refusing to allow you to carry a gun on their premises?

I guess your problem is that you don't quite know what interpretation of the 2nd Amendment you have. I believe you said you have "a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment" because that phrase is deliberately vague and allows you wiggle room to operate within the broad parameters you set. Just another version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, where you continually move the goalposts as to what your "strict interpretation" entails.

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

Of course you do because you want to be able to discriminate against the people you hate; whether it's their religion, race, gender, or sexuality. You want to be able to discriminate and not face any penalty for doing so. That's because you're inherently an irresponsible person who has never been held accountable for anything in your pointless life, and you think you're entitled to be a bigoted loser because it's what you want. Well, you're not entitled to anything, not even your opinion. Entitlements are earned, and you haven't earned jack shit.

strict doesn't mean absolute.

We don't know what "strict" means to you because you haven't articulated what your "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" actually means and entails. You just said it because you think it makes you look clever. All it does is make you look insecure in your own argument since that phrase is designed to allow maximum shifting of the goalposts. So you can make excuses, exceptions, and allowances for a self-contradicting argument that you dress up as a "strict interpretation" when it's really just an ambiguous belief system that is ever-changing, depending on how your shitty argument is faring at any given time.

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.

So again, here's an example of you being a squish in what is ultimately an ambiguous, vague, general, and insecure argument. You just change the definition of your "strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" to suit whatever bullshit argument you're making about it at any given time. What a fraud.

If you are equating strict with absolute, then not being able to pay violates equal protection. Again, Strict is not absolute, and people have property rights under the constitution, as per the 4th amendment.

There is no fallacy, there is interpretation based on strict construction, which means that the government has to apply strict scrutiny to any limit on a given right, and mediate the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

I don't hate anyone due to who they are, i hate people because how they act. What i don't believe in is government getting involved in private butthurt that has zero compelling government interest.

It's about not being an absolutist, which you are wrongly assuming I am to make your myriad of supposed "points" You are pretending "strict" means "absolute" just as a ploy to probably 1) Troll me 2) make yourself seem smart by long-winded winding responses and 3) avoid arguing the actual points of the debate.

 

[martybegan]

You assume strict means absolute./QUOTE]

Not sure what "strict" means ot you because you haven't actually articulated it. Merely saying you have "a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" means nothing if you don't go on to articulate what that means specifically. You avoid that by spitting out random, generalized, ambiguous, vague nonsense about your ever-changing position. As I argued before, that's by design on your part; you know you have a pathetically weak and bullshit argument, but you can't admit as such on a message board. So instead, you come up with platitudes that are weak on substance, and get all whiny and bitchy when someone points it out.

Doesn't sound to me like you have any idea what you position is; all you seem to be concerned about is how people perceive you and your argument on these anonymous boards...which is so insecure.

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

You don't seem to know or understand how laws work. Maybe because you're not an American? Maybe you're just a Russian pretending to be an American to sow discontent.

YStrict interpretation finds NYC's laws to be infringement.

Again, "strict interpretation" here means, "I just made some shit up off the top of my head, set arbitrary standards that I will change later on, all so I can make myself feel better about being a mouth-breathing know-nothing."

Learn to use the quote function, dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

Again, nothing in there about a 6 months waiting period; nothing in there about a $600 fee. So two things you claimed were true turned out not to be true. So you lied by exaggerating your claim. You do that frequently; it's a pretty bad habit of yours. Secondly, that link you provided isn't from New York City (NYC websites end in .gov), but rather a 3rd Party gun fanatic site. So you didn't even cite the New York City statute, and what you did cite didn't support any of your previous claims.

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

And here is the perfect example of you moving the goalposts in order to defend what was already a bullshit argument. The process isn't a waiting period, isn't billed as a waiting period, isn't advertised as such. You're stretching the definition to make up for the fact deficit in your pathetically weak argument.

It's a long process because you assholes cut government spending which slows down bureaucracy. Then you whine about the slow pace of bureaucracy which was caused by your zeal to cut government spending. So long processing periods are the result of that. How about for once you take some responsibility for yourself and what you believe?

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

No idiot, it's a function of personnel. The fewer personnel you have, the slower things are going to move. So when you cut spending, you cut personnel. That's how it works. Like I said before, you are so whiny and entitled and you've done nothing to earn the right to be either.

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?

If you feel so threatened in today's society that you need a gun, then it's your mental illness that needs treatment because you are clearly a paranoid person, and paranoia is a sign of mental illness. Have you done the responsible thing and gotten yourself checked for mental illness? **** NO. You're just a lazy, whiny, entitled bullshitter.

It says 3-6 months to complete the process. that is a waiting period. It lists $340 + $140 or so for prints, plus any other copying or forms you have to do rounds to around $600.

I wasn't off by an order of magnitude, so I am not lying.

The NYC Statue is the sullivan law.

Not moving the goalposts, explaining to a half wit moron (you)

Ignoring the point. Again what purpose does a 3-6 month waiting period have except to make it harder so you give up? What's the point of around $500 in fees (happy now, you ****?) than to punish people who don't have a lot of $$ and deny them their rights because they are poor?

 

[martybegan]

You assume strict means absolute.

Not sure what "strict" means ot you because you haven't actually articulated it. Merely saying you have "a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment" means nothing if you don't go on to articulate what that means specifically. You avoid that by spitting out random, generalized, ambiguous, vague nonsense about your ever-changing position. As I argued before, that's by design on your part; you know you have a pathetically weak and bullshit argument, but you can't admit as such on a message board. So instead, you come up with platitudes that are weak on substance, and get all whiny and bitchy when someone points it out.

Doesn't sound to me like you have any idea what you position is; all you seem to be concerned about is how people perceive you and your argument on these anonymous boards...which is so insecure.

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

You don't seem to know or understand how laws work. Maybe because you're not an American? Maybe you're just a Russian pretending to be an American to sow discontent.

YStrict interpretation finds NYC's laws to be infringement.

Again, "strict interpretation" here means, "I just made some shit up off the top of my head, set arbitrary standards that I will change later on, all so I can make myself feel better about being a mouth-breathing know-nothing."

Also, what standard are you using to determine that NYC is infringing on your gun rights, even though you still get the gun in the end? No standard other than the flimsy, ambiguous, ever-changing standard you invented on the spot.

I just did, strict scrutiny, followed by minimal acceptable remedy.

Waiting 3-6 months for no reason other than the government wants to make things difficult is infringement, regardless of you lack of ability to understand it.

 

[2aguy]

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

Moron.....CPAC was in Maryland....anti gunner heaven.......

The NRA convention was a concealed carry event because it was in a state that didn't disarm people....you are such a doofus.

 

[2aguy]

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

At CPAC they use metal detectors before people can enter, and thus create a secure zone where NO ONE can bring in a gun. I'm also sure they spring for armed security in case some lefty nutter tries to shoot up the place.

Most gun free schools don't actually do anything to create a true secure space, nor do they have any real response plan set up involving onsite armed responders.

Nice try though.

Why can't anyone bring guns? I thought everyone being armed makes everyone safer.

It does....it was in Maryland where anti gunners ban everything.....the NRA had concealed carry at their convention...and nothing happened....

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Logic says if one creates a soft target for terrorists they are most likely going to take advantage of it.

I thought that years ago someone would start shooting up schools in America after Chechnya terrorists pulled off a massacre years ago. It was a matter of time. But I figured Columbine style attacks would be a rarity. Turns out they are becoming a fad after Sandyhook and now Parkland and the massive media cover that followed

 

[The Derp]

If you are equating strict with absolute, then not being able to pay violates equal protection. Again, Strict is not absolute, and people have property rights under the constitution, as per the 4th amendment.

So here's you moving the goalposts on what "strict" means. You haven't bothered to articulate what you mean by "strict interpretation" other than moving the goalposts of your argument to save face. So what does a "strict interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment entail? That you've been unable to articulate, like, at all.

If "strict" doesn't mean "absolute", then what does it mean? Nothing. It means literally nothing because it's a deliberately vague and general word that allows maximum goalpost shifting.

People have property rights under the 4th...OK...and this relates to your "strict interpretation" of the 2nd, how? Can you use your words to articulate what you mean, or are you just going to blather on generally, hoping no one calls you out?

There is no fallacy, there is interpretation based on strict construction, which means that the government has to apply strict scrutiny to any limit on a given right, and mediate the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

Again, this means nothing, and doesn't explain what you actually mean by "strict interpretation". So is this you saying you take the Constitution literally? Is it you saying that you don't really have an understanding of what that entails? Because you're just saying the same thing, using different generalized words that ultimately have no meaning. So reconcile your "strict interpretation" of the 2nd and 4th Amendments with your defense of CPAC? I believe your argument is that the government must follow laws, but no one else has to. That's what you're arguing, right? Specifically when it comes to the 14th Amendment.

This is what happens when you don't know what the **** you're saying.

I don't hate anyone due to who they are, i hate people because how they act. What i don't believe in is government getting involved in private butthurt that has zero compelling government interest.

Right...you hate people "because of how they act". Uh-huh. And you hate them for acting black, Hispanic, gay, muslim, etc. And you don't think the government should have passed anti-discrimination laws because you want to be able to discriminate. That's the only reason why anyone would make such a garbage argument. I mean you actually believe that the Constitution must be followed by only the government and not private citizens. So you don't actually support the Constitution at all. You think it only applies to government, which is completely ******* wrong. But now we at least know what you believe for once.

It's about not being an absolutist, which you are wrongly assuming I am to make your myriad of supposed "points" You are pretending "strict" means "absolute" just as a ploy to probably 1) Troll me 2) make yourself seem smart by long-winded winding responses and 3) avoid arguing the actual points of the debate.

Well, you fail to articulate what you actually mean by what you post, so when I take your post at face value, I do so because you're forcing me to make that determination in your ambiguous, vague, ever-changing parameters. You say you have a "strict interpretation" of the Second Amendment. How? You don't say.

 

[The Derp]

Learn to use the quote function, dumbass.

**** you, loser.