Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[alang1216]

You are wrong.....it isn't how many people we have in prison...it is whether or not you keep letting the most violent criminals out over and over again.....if they are violent and get out of prison, it doesn't matter how many people you have locked up...temporarily......

If you let violent criminals out, like the guy in chicago.....on 2.5 years on a 5 year sentence.....then he gets an another illegal gun and shoots people...it doesn't matter how many other prisoners you have locked up...

He should have been in prison for 30 years....

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

You mean like do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

A good place to start, a poor place to stop.

 

[ding]

You are wrong.....it isn't how many people we have in prison...it is whether or not you keep letting the most violent criminals out over and over again.....if they are violent and get out of prison, it doesn't matter how many people you have locked up...temporarily......

If you let violent criminals out, like the guy in chicago.....on 2.5 years on a 5 year sentence.....then he gets an another illegal gun and shoots people...it doesn't matter how many other prisoners you have locked up...

He should have been in prison for 30 years....

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

You mean like do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

A good place to start, a poor place to stop.

True, but it is a simple one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem.

 

[alang1216]

You are wrong.....it isn't how many people we have in prison...it is whether or not you keep letting the most violent criminals out over and over again.....if they are violent and get out of prison, it doesn't matter how many people you have locked up...temporarily......

If you let violent criminals out, like the guy in chicago.....on 2.5 years on a 5 year sentence.....then he gets an another illegal gun and shoots people...it doesn't matter how many other prisoners you have locked up...

He should have been in prison for 30 years....

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

You mean like do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

A good place to start, a poor place to stop.

True, but it is a simple one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem.

Not a solution to this problem, at least in the real world. Or can you provide any examples?

 

[ding]

You are wrong.....it isn't how many people we have in prison...it is whether or not you keep letting the most violent criminals out over and over again.....if they are violent and get out of prison, it doesn't matter how many people you have locked up...temporarily......

If you let violent criminals out, like the guy in chicago.....on 2.5 years on a 5 year sentence.....then he gets an another illegal gun and shoots people...it doesn't matter how many other prisoners you have locked up...

He should have been in prison for 30 years....

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

You mean like do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

A good place to start, a poor place to stop.

True, but it is a simple one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem.

Not a solution to this problem, at least in the real world. Or can you provide any examples?

The question is why can't you.

All of man's troubles stem from his rationalizations of right and wrong. If everyone were to stop doing that our problems would solve themselves. People make mistakes, the problem comes when they can't admit their mistakes and learn from them. Apply that principle objectively and you will see how each specific problem can be solved.

 

[daveman]

As I said feel free to call me a dem all you want. I no longer give a shit

It's funny you think I need your permission.

You’ve grown boring and have lost your way in this discussion

I must have missed the part in the rules that requires me to agree with you.

 

[daveman]

I don't see how the Bill of Rights or any legislation prevents regulations around gun ownership. We have legal regulations for all of our constitutional rights. Can you explain how the second amendment is different?

You don't understand because you don't know what the phrase "shall not infringe" means. A common Moon Bat aliment.

You're the one who thinks that "shall not infringe' means that the government can't do anything to prevent anyone from owning whatever weapon they chose. When the 2nd Amendment was passes, "guns" were single shot pistols or muskets. And you keep leaving out the "well regulated militia" part.

Back then, legal guns were also cannon.

But I bet you don't want people using privately-owned cannon to defend their homes.

 

[alang1216]

You are wrong.....it isn't how many people we have in prison...it is whether or not you keep letting the most violent criminals out over and over again.....if they are violent and get out of prison, it doesn't matter how many people you have locked up...temporarily......

If you let violent criminals out, like the guy in chicago.....on 2.5 years on a 5 year sentence.....then he gets an another illegal gun and shoots people...it doesn't matter how many other prisoners you have locked up...

He should have been in prison for 30 years....

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

You mean like do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

A good place to start, a poor place to stop.

True, but it is a simple one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem.

Not a solution to this problem, at least in the real world. Or can you provide any examples?

The question is why can't you.

All of man's troubles stem from his rationalizations of right and wrong. If everyone were to stop doing that our problems would solve themselves. People make mistakes, the problem comes when they can't admit their mistakes and learn from them. Apply that principle objectively and you will see how each specific problem can be solved.

You offer up a platitude and then ask me to prove it?

Man's rationalizations of right and wrong are fundamental to his character as a human being. Maybe you should take this up with the model for humanity?

 

[Dragonlady]

I don't see how the Bill of Rights or any legislation prevents regulations around gun ownership. We have legal regulations for all of our constitutional rights. Can you explain how the second amendment is different?

You don't understand because you don't know what the phrase "shall not infringe" means. A common Moon Bat aliment.

You're the one who thinks that "shall not infringe' means that the government can't do anything to prevent anyone from owning whatever weapon they chose. When the 2nd Amendment was passes, "guns" were single shot pistols or muskets. And you keep leaving out the "well regulated militia" part.

Back then, legal guns were also cannon.

But I bet you don't want people using privately-owned cannon to defend their homes.

A cannon, by definition, is not a "gun", it's an artillary weapon. Better a cannon than a handgun. Nobody has shot their spouse in an angry moment with a cannon. You can't get pissed off at your boss and go postal with a cannon. Children are unlikely to find the cannon and accidentally shoot their best friend, or their mom.

 

[ding]

You are wrong.....it isn't how many people we have in prison...it is whether or not you keep letting the most violent criminals out over and over again.....if they are violent and get out of prison, it doesn't matter how many people you have locked up...temporarily......

If you let violent criminals out, like the guy in chicago.....on 2.5 years on a 5 year sentence.....then he gets an another illegal gun and shoots people...it doesn't matter how many other prisoners you have locked up...

He should have been in prison for 30 years....

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

You mean like do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

A good place to start, a poor place to stop.

True, but it is a simple one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem.

Not a solution to this problem, at least in the real world. Or can you provide any examples?

The question is why can't you.

All of man's troubles stem from his rationalizations of right and wrong. If everyone were to stop doing that our problems would solve themselves. People make mistakes, the problem comes when they can't admit their mistakes and learn from them. Apply that principle objectively and you will see how each specific problem can be solved.

You offer up a platitude and then ask me to prove it?

Man's rationalizations of right and wrong are fundamental to his character as a human being. Maybe you should take this up with the model for humanity?

It’s not a platitude, dummy. It’s a human behavior which is the root cause of our problems.

Leave it to you to transfer control to an external source to absolve man of all blame.

The victim mentality is strong in this one.

 

[ding]

I don't see how the Bill of Rights or any legislation prevents regulations around gun ownership. We have legal regulations for all of our constitutional rights. Can you explain how the second amendment is different?

You don't understand because you don't know what the phrase "shall not infringe" means. A common Moon Bat aliment.

You're the one who thinks that "shall not infringe' means that the government can't do anything to prevent anyone from owning whatever weapon they chose. When the 2nd Amendment was passes, "guns" were single shot pistols or muskets. And you keep leaving out the "well regulated militia" part.

Back then, legal guns were also cannon.

But I bet you don't want people using privately-owned cannon to defend their homes.

A cannon, by definition, is not a "gun", it's an artillary weapon. Better a cannon than a handgun. Nobody has shot their spouse in an angry moment with a cannon. You can't get pissed off at your boss and go postal with a cannon. Children are unlikely to find the cannon and accidentally shoot their best friend, or their mom.

Or be able to defend themselves.

 

[daveman]

I don't see how the Bill of Rights or any legislation prevents regulations around gun ownership. We have legal regulations for all of our constitutional rights. Can you explain how the second amendment is different?

You don't understand because you don't know what the phrase "shall not infringe" means. A common Moon Bat aliment.

You're the one who thinks that "shall not infringe' means that the government can't do anything to prevent anyone from owning whatever weapon they chose. When the 2nd Amendment was passes, "guns" were single shot pistols or muskets. And you keep leaving out the "well regulated militia" part.

Back then, legal guns were also cannon.

But I bet you don't want people using privately-owned cannon to defend their homes.

A cannon, by definition, is not a "gun", it's an artillary weapon. Better a cannon than a handgun. Nobody has shot their spouse in an angry moment with a cannon. You can't get pissed off at your boss and go postal with a cannon. Children are unlikely to find the cannon and accidentally shoot their best friend, or their mom.

Oh, we're going by definitions?

A cannon is a type of gun...

When you start off with a lie, everything that follows may be safely discarded as worthless.

 

[alang1216]

You are wrong.....it isn't how many people we have in prison...it is whether or not you keep letting the most violent criminals out over and over again.....if they are violent and get out of prison, it doesn't matter how many people you have locked up...temporarily......

If you let violent criminals out, like the guy in chicago.....on 2.5 years on a 5 year sentence.....then he gets an another illegal gun and shoots people...it doesn't matter how many other prisoners you have locked up...

He should have been in prison for 30 years....

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

You mean like do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

A good place to start, a poor place to stop.

True, but it is a simple one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem.

Not a solution to this problem, at least in the real world. Or can you provide any examples?

The question is why can't you.

All of man's troubles stem from his rationalizations of right and wrong. If everyone were to stop doing that our problems would solve themselves. People make mistakes, the problem comes when they can't admit their mistakes and learn from them. Apply that principle objectively and you will see how each specific problem can be solved.

You offer up a platitude and then ask me to prove it?

Man's rationalizations of right and wrong are fundamental to his character as a human being. Maybe you should take this up with the model for humanity?

It’s not a platitude, dummy. It’s a human behavior which is the root cause of our problems.

Leave it to you to transfer control to an external source to absolve man of all blame.

The victim mentality is strong in this one.

Sucks that the real world doesn't live up to your expectations.

 

[ding]

You are wrong.....it isn't how many people we have in prison...it is whether or not you keep letting the most violent criminals out over and over again.....if they are violent and get out of prison, it doesn't matter how many people you have locked up...temporarily......

If you let violent criminals out, like the guy in chicago.....on 2.5 years on a 5 year sentence.....then he gets an another illegal gun and shoots people...it doesn't matter how many other prisoners you have locked up...

He should have been in prison for 30 years....

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

You mean like do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

A good place to start, a poor place to stop.

True, but it is a simple one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem.

Not a solution to this problem, at least in the real world. Or can you provide any examples?

The question is why can't you.

All of man's troubles stem from his rationalizations of right and wrong. If everyone were to stop doing that our problems would solve themselves. People make mistakes, the problem comes when they can't admit their mistakes and learn from them. Apply that principle objectively and you will see how each specific problem can be solved.

You offer up a platitude and then ask me to prove it?

Man's rationalizations of right and wrong are fundamental to his character as a human being. Maybe you should take this up with the model for humanity?

It’s not a platitude, dummy. It’s a human behavior which is the root cause of our problems.

Leave it to you to transfer control to an external source to absolve man of all blame.

The victim mentality is strong in this one.

Sucks that the real world doesn't live up to your expectations.

I have found that one of the secrets of happiness is not having a preference for an outcome. In part because it reduces subjectivity which allows us to see things as they are and not how we wish they would be which usually results in looking for ways to blame others for our mistakes.

Accountability is a wonderful thing.

 

[2aguy]

I don't see how the Bill of Rights or any legislation prevents regulations around gun ownership. We have legal regulations for all of our constitutional rights. Can you explain how the second amendment is different?

You don't understand because you don't know what the phrase "shall not infringe" means. A common Moon Bat aliment.

You're the one who thinks that "shall not infringe' means that the government can't do anything to prevent anyone from owning whatever weapon they chose. When the 2nd Amendment was passes, "guns" were single shot pistols or muskets. And you keep leaving out the "well regulated militia" part.

Back then, legal guns were also cannon.

But I bet you don't want people using privately-owned cannon to defend their homes.

A cannon, by definition, is not a "gun", it's an artillary weapon. Better a cannon than a handgun. Nobody has shot their spouse in an angry moment with a cannon. You can't get pissed off at your boss and go postal with a cannon. Children are unlikely to find the cannon and accidentally shoot their best friend, or their mom.

1.2 million Americans who use their legal guns each year to save lives would think you are foolish..........

Focus on keeping actual criminals locked up in jail and prison and stop worrying about normal people who own guns for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting..

 

[Levant]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

 

[Levant]

Been hearing this about Democrats taking my guns for many years, still have ALL my guns. its just a political talking point.

Do you have a fully auto gun? Do you have a sawed off shotgun? Do you have a muzzle device designed to protect your hearing when shooting your gun? There are a lot of people in a lot of states that no longer have their 22 caliber home defense guns. There are a lot of people in a lot of states who no longer have their high-capacity handguns - guns they legally purchased and had taken away.

If Biden wins in November, we'll see if it's a political talking point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Speech and assembly are Rights but there are limits imposed on each. We have Rights, we don't have absolute Rights, they are all limited in one way or another.

The limits are never what SJW assholes claim they are.

Not SJW, but SCOTUS.

It's not up to the courts to supersede the Constitution
For that, it would take a Constitutional convention
OR
Congress amending the Constitution and with the approval of 2/3rds of the states

 

[bripat9643]

Speech and assembly are Rights but there are limits imposed on each. We have Rights, we don't have absolute Rights, they are all limited in one way or another.

The limits are never what SJW assholes claim they are.

Not SJW, but SCOTUS.

It's not up to the courts to supersede the Constitution
For that, it would take a Constitutional convention
OR
Congress amending the Constitution and with the approval of 2/3rds of the states

alang1216 obviously believe that the SC can make the Constitution say whatever they want. People like him are the reason this country is so fucked up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Speech and assembly are Rights but there are limits imposed on each. We have Rights, we don't have absolute Rights, they are all limited in one way or another.

The limits are never what SJW assholes claim they are.

Not SJW, but SCOTUS.

They are 9, politically appointed lawyers.........they aren't saints.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, democracy sucks.

actually we aren't a democracy we are a REPUBLIC that protects individual rights against the majority or (democracy)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Speech and assembly are Rights but there are limits imposed on each. We have Rights, we don't have absolute Rights, they are all limited in one way or another.

The limits are never what SJW assholes claim they are.

Not SJW, but SCOTUS.

It's not up to the courts to supersede the Constitution
For that, it would take a Constitutional convention
OR
Congress amending the Constitution and with the approval of 2/3rds of the states

alang1216 obviously believe that the SC can make the Constitution say whatever they want. People like him are the reason this country is so fucked up.

When Trump makes his next two appointments to the Supreme court they'll stop looking to the courts for help