Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Flash]

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.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

 

[Slade3200]

Is that right? So let me ask you. If somebody goes to jail for murder should they be allowed to take a gun with them to prison? Should they be able to get one Rightafter they are released?

No, they can't take a gun with them to prison. Yes, when they get out they should be able to buy a gun on their way home - or the guns they had before prison are already waiting for them. That's how it was for the first 150 years in this country. That is clearly original intent.

It was also the original intent to give states and the federal legislature the ability to make laws to reflect the needs of the time which they live. The conditions in the 1700s and 1800s were very different. The founders wrote the constitution in a way to give us the ability to adapt it as we see fit through amendments and the legislative branch of government

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.

Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.

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?

We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......

What harm to you see with universal background checks

My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...

You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.

I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?

Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?

I think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.

Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.

I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the question

Universal Background checks do nothing...

Method, source, and process used to obtain the firearm Among prisoners who possessed a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned and who reported the source from which they obtained it, the most common source (43%) was off-the-street or the underground market (table 5). Another 7% of state and 5% of federal prisoners stole the firearm, and 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners reported that they obtained the firearm at the location of the crime.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

You’re link only showed that about 50% of guns were obtained illegally. You do realize that leaves another 50% don’t you?

You understand that there are over a 100 million guns in the US that are used for legal purposes, don't you?

Why would you infringe up the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms arms because gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes would use mostly illegally required firearms for criminal purposes?

You know that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, don't you? I shit you not. Go look it up.

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

Don't lie. It just makes you look like an idiot to go down that path.

If you put restrictions on who can own a firearm, if you restrict the kind of firearms, if you require government permission before getting a firearm and if you create requirements for firearm use then you are sure as hell doing some serious infringing.

The Constitution is very specific. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't be credible when you stick your head up your ass and claim that infringements are not infringements.

We’ve been doing all of that regulating for years, it has been debated in Congress and appealed to the Supreme Court which is the proper legal path to take when conflicts arise. It’s been ruled upon. That’s the process that our founders set up. I’m sorry that you don’t respect that but it is what it is.

 

[007]

Here's what happens when the people have been disarmed...

 

[daveman]

I've been saying for years, and this thread is yet more evidence I'm right:

Democrats want to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Why?

Because disarmed people cannot resist totalitarianism.

And if any of you leftists here want to disagree, save it. You can't be believed, and you can't be trusted.

The filthy ass Democrats are hell bent to make this country a Socialist shithole.

The Bill of Rights is an impediment to that goal, especially the right to keep and bear arms. Socialists countries have always disarmed their populace.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[007]

We’ve been doing all of that regulating for years, it has been debated in Congress and appealed to the Supreme Court which is the proper legal path to take when conflicts arise. It’s been ruled upon. That’s the process that our founders set up. I’m sorry that you don’t respect that but it is what it is.

Who said the SC was the end all, be all, never to be questioned or challenged?

I thought we had three 'coequal' branches of government, and the SC was just one of them.

 

[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.

The fact is that SCOTUS can and they do.

Thanks for stating the sad reality of our government. Thanks for admitting to it.

Thanks for admitting your hatred of America.

So you believe patriotic Americans should approve of an SC that rewrites the Constitution whenever it likes?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

There is no requirement for agreement smart ass. I enjoy a good debate, but it takes two honest actors to do it right

Oh, you mean honesty like you denying you support a platform you've done nothing but support?

Uh huh.

Yes I mean honest. Like I’ve been, not like you’ve been

 

[bripat9643]

Well that depends on how you define infringe. Many feel that infringe means that you can not take that right away but regulating it is acceptable. I happen to agree with that and I imagine you do as well if you were being honest. Hence my uzi sale to a 10 year old example.

infringe
[inˈfrinj]

VERB

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms:
   contravene · violate · transgress · break · breach · commit a breach of · disobey · defy · flout · fly in the face of · ride roughshod over · kick against · fail to comply with ·
   [more]
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringed" ·
     [more]
     synonyms:
     undermine · erode · diminish · weaken · impair · damage · compromise · limit · curb · check · place a limit on · encroach on · interfere with · disturb · disrupt · trespass on · impinge on · intrude on · enter · invade · barge in on · burst in on · entrench on

2. 1828 meaning:
   

   INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
   
   1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
   
   2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
   
   3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

   Regulating infringes the right. Plain and simple.
   
   

It does not infringe if the citizen is still able to purchase a gun.

Wrong. What an incredible dumbass.

 

[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.

There is no requirement for agreement smart ass. I enjoy a good debate, but it takes two honest actors to do it right

Oh, you mean honesty like you denying you support a platform you've done nothing but support?

Uh huh.

Yes I mean honest. Like I’ve been, not like you’ve been

If that lets you live with your hypocrisy, sure.

 

[bripat9643]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

This is nonsense. Just because I'm a convicted stalker that means I shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm? This is what happens when we let feminists/women in government. We get these anti-male and anti-liberty laws. It's bad enough I am not allowed within 5,000 feet of any schools. Time take back our liberties and rights.

If you ask you doctor for a sleeping pill you may be prevented from buying a gun.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

 

[Slade3200]

We’ve been doing all of that regulating for years, it has been debated in Congress and appealed to the Supreme Court which is the proper legal path to take when conflicts arise. It’s been ruled upon. That’s the process that our founders set up. I’m sorry that you don’t respect that but it is what it is.

Who said the SC was the end all, be all, never to be questioned or challenged?

I thought we had three 'coequal' branches of government, and the SC was just one of them.

Well I sure as hell didn’t say that. Challenge the SC all you want

 

[bripat9643]

Is that right? So let me ask you. If somebody goes to jail for murder should they be allowed to take a gun with them to prison? Should they be able to get one Rightafter they are released?

No, they can't take a gun with them to prison. Yes, when they get out they should be able to buy a gun on their way home - or the guns they had before prison are already waiting for them. That's how it was for the first 150 years in this country. That is clearly original intent.

It was also the original intent to give states and the federal legislature the ability to make laws to reflect the needs of the time which they live. The conditions in the 1700s and 1800s were very different. The founders wrote the constitution in a way to give us the ability to adapt it as we see fit through amendments and the legislative branch of government

How does that give the SC the authority to legislate from the bench?

 

[Slade3200]

Is that right? So let me ask you. If somebody goes to jail for murder should they be allowed to take a gun with them to prison? Should they be able to get one Rightafter they are released?

No, they can't take a gun with them to prison. Yes, when they get out they should be able to buy a gun on their way home - or the guns they had before prison are already waiting for them. That's how it was for the first 150 years in this country. That is clearly original intent.

It was also the original intent to give states and the federal legislature the ability to make laws to reflect the needs of the time which they live. The conditions in the 1700s and 1800s were very different. The founders wrote the constitution in a way to give us the ability to adapt it as we see fit through amendments and the legislative branch of government

How does that give the SC the authority to legislate from the bench?

They don’t have the right to legislate from the bench.

 

[007]

We’ve been doing all of that regulating for years, it has been debated in Congress and appealed to the Supreme Court which is the proper legal path to take when conflicts arise. It’s been ruled upon. That’s the process that our founders set up. I’m sorry that you don’t respect that but it is what it is.

Who said the SC was the end all, be all, never to be questioned or challenged?

I thought we had three 'coequal' branches of government, and the SC was just one of them.

Well I sure as hell didn’t say that. Challenge the SC all you want

Then you disapprove of the SC being activists and legislating from the bench, even though you've admitted they do it.

 

[alang1216]

So you believe patriotic Americans should approve of an SC that rewrites the Constitution whenever it likes?

The Founding Fathers couldn't come up with a better structure, can you?

 

[bripat9643]

So you believe patriotic Americans should approve of an SC that rewrites the Constitution whenever it likes?

The Founding Fathers couldn't come up with a better structure, can you?

I'll take that as a "yes."

 

[daveman]

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.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

 

[alang1216]

So you believe patriotic Americans should approve of an SC that rewrites the Constitution whenever it likes?

The Founding Fathers couldn't come up with a better structure, can you?

I'll take that as a "yes."

I'll take that as a "no".