Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[Rustic]

“There is this weird AmeYou guys watch top gear? rican fantasy we NEED guns. Do we?”

Irrelevant.

Citizens are not required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

The issue is not ‘needing’ to own a gun – the issue is what firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional and which are not.

We need guns only to defend "us" from other people with guns, or secondly, to get food. That is your argument(s) in a nutshell. And yeah, there is this major trip up, the second amendment. We need guns oh, we need guns. because guns nutters tell us we need them . That asswhipe in Vegas had 47 guns and mowed down countless people. Wouldn't one worked just as well? Nobody in that crowd shot back. Telling isn't it?

Tell us more bleeding heart

 

[Rustic]

I ******* hunt. I hunt. When I lived in Tennessee I ******* hunted. I'm in Canada now. I ******* HUNT MY FOOD.

**** OFF.

You hunt. You live in Canada. They have supermarkets in Canada, don't they? We have a problem here in Yankeeland with gun toting madmen, perhaps you haven't noticed. Some of us yanks have had enough of this gunmania and want to really end that. Repealing the 2nd amendment to the American constitution.

It will never happen. There's way too many non-moonbats in America.

The 2nd A. need not be repealed, for there is some truth to the meme that only then criminals will have guns. Gun Control does not and never has meant a repeal of the 2nd; it means we need to be rational and honestly disgust the benefits of gun ownership and the deficits of gun ownership.

Gun control is about violating the rights of the people.

Yes, it is. It is why, Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Go back and read it in the context of the era

 

[danielpalos]

I ******* hunt. I hunt. When I lived in Tennessee I ******* hunted. I'm in Canada now. I ******* HUNT MY FOOD.

**** OFF.

I bet that bump stock and high cap mag make it much easier.

Muskets for All! We can all be, Musketeers!

 

[danielpalos]

OP is a ******* jackass.

Educate yourself.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Read the SCOTUS decision on D.C.vs. Heller.

Then make your arguments.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

Educate yourself.

You should take your own advice.
You should read Scalia's opinion.
If you actually had, you would know that the conservative justice outlined very clearly that the 2nd is not unlimited and that additional imits could and would be permissible.

I think it fixed a precedent; ignore the first clause or paragraph for the "operative clause or paragraph".

 

[Rustic]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

They refuse to, grow up and muster and become, well regulated.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal governments business… That is the meaning of the second amendment

 

[usmbguest5318]

I ******* hunt. I hunt. When I lived in Tennessee I ******* hunted. I'm in Canada now. I ******* HUNT MY FOOD.

**** OFF.

And nobody has a problem with your doing that. What people will have a problem with, should it happen, is your deciding that a person or situation has riled you so that you aim your gun in the direction of human being. We've recently seen at least two instances wherein presumably sensible gun users, presumably like you are, did just that.

The question is how can we tell who is likely to "lose it" and become the next people killer? The answer, of course, is that we don't know how to make that determination. Does our ignorance in that regard mean that we should put limits on everyone's access to guns until we can get a reasonably clear picture of how to tell?

I think so and I do because that's what one does to manage to a minimum probability of materializing the risk of unwanted outcomes. Is there an outcome any more undesirable than one person causing the abrupt and involuntary death, maiming or injury of another? My system of ethics says there is not.

When I'm unsure of whether to invest in a company, do I just fork over my money anyway and hope for the best? Of course, I don't. I wait until I have enough information to make a wise choice about what course of action I'll follow. Does my financial advisor suggest a purchase without providing me with his rationale for why I should make it? No, not at all. Did the firm that purchased my company do so without reviewing our performance, financial position, assets, networks, vetting my and my other key partners' backgrounds, etc? Absolutely not. Does one's doctor schedule an appendectomy merely because one complains of a pain in their abdomen? No.

When it comes to guns and the risk that a gun owner's weapon might be used to, deliberately and against another's will, kill, maim or injure them, attenuating that risk is the very opposite of how conservatives would have us handle the matter. Their rationale, in essence, is to let anyone buy a gun and, well, trust that they won't misuse it, to just see what happens. Well, so-called conservatives, that approach is anything but conservative. What is conservatism but a predilection for being risk averse? What is a conservative approach other than that of anticipating detriments and acting to preempt their manifestation?

Now, I imagine myopic readers will see that last sentence and think "owning/carrying a gun is a person's way of being ready to handle a threatening situation that may arise." It may well be that; however, that's not preemptive action. It's preparing a reaction, and when it comes to gun misuse, what I'm talking about is taking action before the fact of the gun's misuse, not after the fact.

There is also the matter that no single individual's need to protect themselves is greater than the whole of society's need to attenuate the risk of the misuse of guns, which, unlike most other implements that one may use to hurt or kill another, have no primary purpose other than to hurt or kill.

Bows and arrows are also "point and shoot" ranged weapons that have essentially the same purposes and facility as guns and can be used with equal effectiveness, yet we don't see people using them to effect criminal activity nor to deter would be assailants. Indeed, one does not even need much in the way of resources to have one; a very effective set can be fabricated by anyone from items freely available to everyone. (How hard can it be? Humans have been making them for over 50K years. They were crucial to our survival, and clearly we did survive for here we are, so it's not as though they don't work.)

So why is it gun misuse is phenomenon we observe, yet bow and arrow misuse is not? I'd posit that it's because a gun is just too damned easy to misuse, but it could instead or also be that guns increase people's gall. The truth is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, which contributes to our not being able to choose an effective attenuation approach. What I do know is that people, too many of them, are given to misusing guns and and almost nobody is predisposed to do that with a bow and arrows or other ranged weapons. That tells me that we need an effective means of curtailing gun misuse.

So, "Mr. Hunter," I don't want you to not eat. I don't want to deny you whatever pleasure you derive from the hunt. Is there a reason you can't hunt with a bow and arrows? Do you have only one arm? I merely don't want your gun being used to hurt or kill someone, and we know that there's absolutely no trend or pattern of people using bows and arrows to perform arbitrary or planned killings and criminal acts.

So, what assurances have we, as a society, that you won't one day "flip out and shoot someone? What assurances have we, as a society, that another person won't obtain your gun and misuse it? We both know the answer is none that are credible. What we know, at least right now, is that if you don't have a gun, it cannot be misused.

So what approach do I suggest for effecting a solution to gun violence?

1. Repeal the "Dickey Amendment."
2. Enact a seven year, automatically ending, prohibition on the use (outside of shooting competition events and shooting ranges where one might practice for such events), sale and exchange of semi-automatic firearms. (Mainly to allow time for the studies to be performed with due rigor.)
3. Commission a comprehensive set of studies to determine:
   • What causes gun violence/misuse
   • What are the indicators of one's "flipping out" and misusing a gun
   • How to test for those causes and indicators
4. Enact onerous, strict liability, penalties throughout the supply chain -- manufacturer to distributor to shipper to seller to consumer -- for being party to the sequence of events whereby a gun one built or bought was used to kill or hurt another individual.
   • Because responsible people who care about the general welfare and who have possession of a firearm have a responsibility to exert a hell of a lot of prudent control over it to make sure they don't lose it to someone who has no business possessing a firearm.
   • Because if one has a gun, and one is responsible, one is going to exercise a hell of a lot of judicious control over it ,and when using it; thus one isn't going to have to pay any penalty.
5. Upon the completion of the studies, implement laws and procedures in accordance with the findings.

 

[Rustic]

My 13 year old son cannot go into a 7-11 and buy a fully automatic M-60 machine gun.

There is gun control.

What liberals want is a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Well, knock yourselves out....you just need 2/3 of Congress and 75% of state legislatures to approve of the bill and you guys got your wish....no more 2nd amendment.

Even Diane Feinstein stated that all the laws in place could not have stopped the Las Vegas shooter. This one is truly a super strange one until someone can figure out his motive.

A free society has inherent risks.

Almost all gun owners are responsible, just like most people who drink alcohol don't drive drunk and kill people.

Some do.

Consider Drunk Driving and the impact of MADD when a minority of mother's said "'Enough!"

The NRA enables the few who are criminals to easily obtain a firearm and ammo. And those emotionally attached to their guns enable them too. Either you and others who support a 2nd A. as an absolute had better begin to find a means to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, for more and more citizens will say "Enough!".

 

[fncceo]

They're the lobbying arm of the profiteers

Who doesn't love a profiteer?

 

[Rustic]

My 13 year old son cannot go into a 7-11 and buy a fully automatic M-60 machine gun.

There is gun control.

What liberals want is a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Well, knock yourselves out....you just need 2/3 of Congress and 75% of state legislatures to approve of the bill and you guys got your wish....no more 2nd amendment.

Even Diane Feinstein stated that all the laws in place could not have stopped the Las Vegas shooter. This one is truly a super strange one until someone can figure out his motive.

A free society has inherent risks.

Almost all gun owners are responsible, just like most people who drink alcohol don't drive drunk and kill people.

Some do.

Consider Drunk Driving and the impact of MADD when a minority of mother's said "'Enough!"

The NRA enables the few who are criminals to easily obtain a firearm and ammo. And those emotionally attached to their guns enable them too. Either you and others who support a 2nd A. as an absolute had better begin to find a means to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, for more and more citizens will say "Enough!".

What law has the NRA ever promoted to make it easy for a criminal to get a gun?

REALLY? The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you.

 

[danielpalos]

You guys love guns more than you love human beings.

Depends on the gun and the human being ...

almost makes me want to become, a gun lover.

 

[Rustic]

You left wing anti gun whackos use the argument that one man going crazy and killing people is the reason all the rest of the law abiding citizens of the country must be stripped f their rights.

YET when it comes to a temporary ban to properly vet people from known terrorist hot beds you say that screening all those people for just one terrorist isn't fair.



******* hypocrites.

You're really stupid, on some level you must know that. Vetting occurs, at the borders, at airports, sea ports and overseas. Is it perfect? Of course not, and if you want to blame someone, blame The Congress. That's what people like you do, nothing! But you whine, piss, moan and write "ain't they awful"

vetting happens with immigrants and refugees??

 

[Rustic]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

Not one example of an NRA supported gun control measure.

Q. Do they enable domestic and foreign terrorists

A. YES!

 

[danielpalos]

Living in your mental masturbation fantasy world again?

A gun is just a tool to most of us

So is porn, to some of us; I routinely practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear, on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.

You consider porn a tool? What a little weirdo..

You consider a gun a tool without being well regulated? What an unorganized weirdo.

Where did I say that? My position has always been to enforce the laws we already have but democrats and republicans alike don't want to enforce the almost 50 year laws already on the books.

A post of mine from 2013



Gun control works! Why do so many people object to it?


.

10USC246 is federal law; don't be illegal to federal laws, gun lovers. You may fix a Bad moral Standard for less fortunate illegals.

 

[Rustic]

No one on page one answered the question?

Where do you draw the line?

It’s none of the federal government’s business, that being firearm ownership. LOL

 

[fncceo]

almost makes me want to become, a gun lover.

Come to the dark side ... this is all the other side can offer you...

 

[danielpalos]

You hunt. You live in Canada. They have supermarkets in Canada, don't they? We have a problem here in Yankeeland with gun toting madmen, perhaps you haven't noticed. Some of us yanks have had enough of this gunmania and want to really end that. Repealing the 2nd amendment to the American constitution.

It will never happen. There's way too many non-moonbats in America.

The 2nd A. need not be repealed, for there is some truth to the meme that only then criminals will have guns. Gun Control does not and never has meant a repeal of the 2nd; it means we need to be rational and honestly disgust the benefits of gun ownership and the deficits of gun ownership.

Gun control is about violating the rights of the people.

Yes, it is. It is why, Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Go back and read it in the context of the era

Nothing has changed. The People are the Militia.

 

[Rustic]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

What you qualify as a "safe and sane gun policy", I consider an intrusion on my individual rights. Just cuz you say it, don't make it so.

How intruded on their individual rights were the families of the 58 victims? I'd put those killed and thier right to live as a greater intrusion; that you don't is telling.

Shit happens, No reason to punish law-abiding people unjustly. Jack weed

 

[Rustic]

almost makes me want to become, a gun lover.

Come to the dark side ... this is all the other side can offer you...

 

[PredFan]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

I'm jealous of the people who haven't read your stupid post.

 

[danielpalos]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

They refuse to, grow up and muster and become, well regulated.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal governments business… That is the meaning of the second amendment

No, it isn't. It only means that, in right wing fantasy. To the rest of us, it means what it says, about the whole and entire, militia of the People.