Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Ray From Cleveland]

i'd pay him $100 to go to a gun show and try to buy a gun w/o a background check and double that if he's actually able to do it and have an independent person film the events.

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification, whether at a gun show or other venue. This is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders, who are required to perform background checks and record all sales on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Some states have passed laws to require background checks for private sales with limited exceptions. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders.

The holes in background checks are so numerous as to make the laws ineffective at their primary purpose, keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Lobbying groups have seen to that.

Unfortunately, to have really effective gun control requires that gun ownership become a privilege not a right. So as the killing power of guns become greater so will the scope of mass murder.

In the United States of America, it should be a "privilege" to have the ability to defend yourself?

Yes.
Law enforcement is certainly capability of defending the people in a society where there are no guns. In fact, law enforcement would be far more effective.

Let me get this straight: Somebody breaks into my home while I'm there. The intruder is armed with a knife. As he approaches me to make sure there are no witnesses, the police will come to my rescue even though I didn't have enough time to notify them? And even if I did, they will be there in time to defend me before that guy attacks me with the knife?

Realty situation: A guy is breaking into my home with a knife. I rush to my bedroom to grab by semi-automatic 9mm. The second I see him, I put three hollow points in his chest. He's dead, I'm alive. Now I can call the police to remove the scum from my home.

I don't know where you get this idea that the police are only seconds away in any given situations of life or death.

 

[Flopper]

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Well, we're gonna have to find judicial review in Article III. Where's that at in Article III, Clayton? Show us. We'll wait. Thanks!

The judicial review is not in the constitution but it is an implied power.

In order for checks and balances to work, each branch should have some control over the others. If one branch gets out of line, the other two can rein it back in. This wouldn’t work if one branch was subservient to the other two.

The justices take an oath. They don’t swear to the other branches; they swear to support the Constitution. Therefore, when the other branches violate the Constitution, the Judiciary is Constitutionally obligated not to go along.

 

[Coyote]

The thread is getting hugely derailed, 25 posts worth have been deleted.

Try to move back to the topic please, and yes, the red ink is telling you to do so.

I've been on topic. And so far I've yet to read any competent response. But that's your real problem, isn't it? You don't like that, do you?

Maybe you should start another one of your 'official' threads the way you usually do when you want to dictate the terms of discussion? They're usually about as deep as a mud puddle anyway.

I am not sure what your issue is. My mod note was not directed at you, but at those who’s posts I had to delete. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You want the job, stay clean. If you are using during your vacation then chances are you are also using when you aren't on vacation. Don't lie about it. It means a lot of lives are on the line for certain jobs. It's like when I was an Aircraft Specialist. Do you really want to fly on an Aircraft that a druggie worked on? Or when I worked High Scale. Certain jobs MUST be completely clean for the safety of everyone. I don't find ConWays drug policy wrong at all. If you do then maybe you should go work at something less dangerous.

That makes no sense and is an illegal invasion of privacy.
There is no drug that continues to have effect after 12 hours or so.
Just because the drug test can find minute traces in your urine, does not mean you are high, dangerous, or incapable of delicate work.
The government has no right or authority to say what you do, only that you do your job correctly.
And drug testing does not at all do that.

In my case, drug testing is a government requirement. However it's not so in other industries. Companies get breaks in their Workman's Compensation insurance if they participate in drug screenings for employees. But because government forces us to comply, I do find that a violation of our fourth Amendment rights.

You have the option to go work somewhere else. I hear that grocery baggers are probably not randomly drug tested.

So are you saying that when government violates your rights, it's up to you as a citizen to take action so your rights are no longer being violated by the government?

If that's the case, then why have any rights at all? It's like saying if you don't want government to search your home without a warrant, don't live in a home. Live under a bridge and that's totally constitutional.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they are subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

When government enacts laws repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the First Amendment right to seek relief through either the political or judicial process.

The Second Amendment right is no different, likewise subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

You are responding to two different scenarios at once. The debate is that WHEN the government violates your rights, it's up to the individual to make adjustments so that they can't, instead of relying on the premise that rights are extended to all equally; no matter who you are or what you do for income.

As I stated earlier, that's as ridiculous as saying if you don't want government to barge in, search you, your family, or your home, you should not have a home to begin with so they can't violate your rights.

Another scenario: the government is allowed to stop me for no reason, search my truck, go through my paperwork, inspect my cargo, do a safety check on my vehicle, but if they'd ever do the same to a motorist in a car, that would be a violation of their 4th Amendment rights.

Please explain to me the difference here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If rights do not come from the government, then where do they come from? If you say God or nature, then why do countries that rule under Communism or Dictatorships not have those rights to their citizens? It's because government doesn't provide those rights no matter where you think they came from.

Because we're the only nation in the world which specifically bases it's form of government on the notion that all men are created...endowed by their creator. It says so right there in the document. It doesn't matter what other countries do in this regard.

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Because we're the only nation in the world which specifically bases it's form of government on the notion that all men are created...endowed by their creator. It says so right there in the document. It doesn't matter what other countries do in this regard.

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Understood, but the point I'm making is that it is the government that grants you rights, just like it's the government that creates laws. They don't appear out of thin air and our rights are not applicable in every other country in the world. They are applicable to our citizens under our Constitution where those rights were written by government.

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That is incorrect.
We, you and I, and others, create government.
It is subordinate and inferior in terms of authority to us.
We hire government to do certain things for us, but government can never be superior to its employers, us,
Governments do NOT really create laws at all.
Laws are supposed to be based simply on the pragmatic requirements necessary in order to protect individual inherent rights.
That is abstracted in to a constitution, and then legislators can pen laws in order to implement those inherent and pre-established protections of rights.
A government can never write a constitution, because a government does not exist yet before the Constitution is written.

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you suppose if we were invaded by China, they took over the government, you would still have your rights because they were written by the people?

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

 

[Blues Man]

abolish the 2nd amendment

abolish people dying because they cant afford getting sick

abolish people dying because of guns

abolish people killing each other because they have too many guns and too little education

abolish people and solve all your problems at the same time

We could start with you

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You misunderstand.
Rights are inherent for what is right to humans.
If the country is invaded or criminals take over some other way, what is right remains right.
The fact you may no longer have government backing up your rights changes nothing as far as what is right and what rights you will fight for.
The fact you may be killed, does not alter what is right and what rights all humans should inherently have.
Having rights does not mean they necessarily can't be violated.
We have the right to life now in the US, but some one can still murder you.
That does not change your right to life.
You can tell because the murderer will be prosecuted if caught.
Governments or criminals can not change what is right or what rights are.

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

 

[Taz]

N

So more guns are needed to be safer. So why is it that other countries can have less guns and less mass shootings but we can’t?

When it comes to mass murders, the US is 20th on the list.

mass murders by country

Those stats are for general murders, but interesting none the less. We're right up there with all the other shitholes.

We need gun control to stop the irresponsible, Nazis, and mentally disturbed from having access to guns. America is a capitalist shithole. Only communism could save it.

You have that totally backwards.
What gives Fascists power IS gun control.
The only way to reduce fascism is to end gun control first.

The reason Hitler was able to massacre all the Spartacus League in Germany was that there was such strict gun control.
Only Hitlers forces were exempt, because the SA were a privileged veterans society that claimed to be promoting marksmanship.

No progressive, liberal, or leftest would ever support gun control.
Gun control has always been used to murder anyone against racism or for things like labor unions.

Nazis supported guns for Nazis. That helped them kill Jews in the Holocaust.

So why don't you like Jews?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, because the Constitution refers to the government violating your rights, not another individual.

A convicted felon cannot buy or be in possession of a firearm. The right to be in possession of a firearm is guaranteed in the Constitution. The people who took that right away from you was the government. Same thing with voting.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed. But if you are arrested, imprisoned, and even sentenced to execution, all those rights are taken away from you by the government. If you are imprisoned, you lose the right to liberty by the government. If you are imprisoned, you are denied the right to happiness by the government. If you are imprisoned and executed for a capital crime, your right to life has been eliminated by the government.

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I am not sure what your issue is. My mod note was not directed at you, but at those who’s posts I had to delete. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

I think it's my hyperthyroidism. I've been in and out of the hospital the last few weeks staying three to four days at a time for treatment. And I'm stuck at home on very, very, very light activity. Three times I had episodes of thyroid storm. So, that's why.

That stuff makes you snap on people for the most benig of things. Seriously. My dog even tippy toes around the house when he passes by me. And he's a Kangal, usually pretty independent and brave. So, yeah.

Couple of weeks ago I tried a trip to wally world and I was able to drive down there and walk through the parking lot. But then I got really, really dizzy, heart rat ewent way up and as soon as I walked in this woman was pushing a cart with a kid in it and lemme tell ya, that kid was raising hell. As soon as I alked in I yelled shut that damn kid up. Then I turned around and left because like I said, I had an episide of thyroid storm right then. I had to sit.

Anyway. It makes you a total dick to people sometimes. Verbally, at least. But then once you refresh your med dose your hormone imbalance evens out. Flip side of it is you feel like an ass the next time you see th person you whigged out on. Sorry, no hard feelings?

They're probably gonna want my plinker next. lol.

 

[Cecilie1200]

N

So more guns are needed to be safer. So why is it that other countries can have less guns and less mass shootings but we can’t?

When it comes to mass murders, the US is 20th on the list.

mass murders by country

Those stats are for general murders, but interesting none the less. We're right up there with all the other shitholes.

We need gun control to stop the irresponsible, Nazis, and mentally disturbed from having access to guns. America is a capitalist shithole. Only communism could save it.

You have that totally backwards.
What gives Fascists power IS gun control.
The only way to reduce fascism is to end gun control first.

The reason Hitler was able to massacre all the Spartacus League in Germany was that there was such strict gun control.
Only Hitlers forces were exempt, because the SA were a privileged veterans society that claimed to be promoting marksmanship.

No progressive, liberal, or leftest would ever support gun control.
Gun control has always been used to murder anyone against racism or for things like labor unions.

Nazis supported guns for Nazis. That helped them kill Jews in the Holocaust.

All right, I think I've hit my limit of "Too fucking stupid to create a post without the word 'Nazi' in it."

When brain transplants become a thing, do come back and show us that you have an actual vocabulary, mouthbreather.

FLUSH!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"It's in the Constitution right here in this thing that isn't the actual Constitution!"

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And what got you there in the first place? You violated others right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So where in the Constitution does it say if "I" violate somebody's rights, the government has the right to violate mine?

As I stated, rights were granted so that government could not violate them. As an individual, I have no mandate to do the same. The Constitution doesn't prohibit me from violating your rights, it prohibits the government from violating those rights.

In other words, government cannot stop me from free speech, but if I go to work and call my boss a MF, and tell him to go to hell, he can fire me because he's not bound by the Constitution of allowing free speech. Only the government is. So I can call my Congress person a MF, and tell him or her to go to hell with no repercussions, but I can't do the same with my employer.

So you say that you can go into a school, murder 40 school children, wouldn't a couple of hundred and you can't lose any of your "Rights" even though you terrorized the whole community and murdered and maimed many? We should just look at you and say, shame, shame and go on with our lives, or at least those of us still alive.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I clearly stated that government does have the ability to remove rights from people. The Constitution does not guarantee rights if you choose to surrender them by violating law.

If I am a convicted felon, the government has the ability to not allow me to exercise my right of firearm ownership. I made that choice when I decided to become a felon.

But it wasn't your choice. I know of a number of convicted felons on Parole that certainly don't have that choice. It's not the person that removes those "Rights", it's the Government. And guess why?

The government removes rights based on your actions. The felons you know did make that choice when they committed their crimes and got caught. Ask anyone of them if they knew they wouldn't be able to ever possess a firearm again, vote in most states, and have difficulty finding a decent paying job.

They knew all of these things before committing the crime, so they made that choice. Nobody forced them to rob a convenience store.

Yet you say that the Government can't take anyone's rights. You even said it applied to Felons. Your goal post must be Quantum powered. Now, who grants you those rights in the first place. And don't say it's God Given. If a person is an Athiest does that mean they have no rights?

My entire argument is that rights are given to us by the government. How could government take something away they didn't give you in the first place?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

N

When it comes to mass murders, the US is 20th on the list.

mass murders by country

Those stats are for general murders, but interesting none the less. We're right up there with all the other shitholes.

We need gun control to stop the irresponsible, Nazis, and mentally disturbed from having access to guns. America is a capitalist shithole. Only communism could save it.

You have that totally backwards.
What gives Fascists power IS gun control.
The only way to reduce fascism is to end gun control first.

The reason Hitler was able to massacre all the Spartacus League in Germany was that there was such strict gun control.
Only Hitlers forces were exempt, because the SA were a privileged veterans society that claimed to be promoting marksmanship.

No progressive, liberal, or leftest would ever support gun control.
Gun control has always been used to murder anyone against racism or for things like labor unions.

Nazis supported guns for Nazis. That helped them kill Jews in the Holocaust.

All right, I think I've hit my limit of "Too fucking stupid to create a post without the word 'Nazi' in it."

When brain transplants become a thing, do come back and show us that you have an actual vocabulary, mouthbreather.

FLUSH!

Come now. Show me a blog without a troll, and I"ll show you a Democrat with dignity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

N

Those stats are for general murders, but interesting none the less. We're right up there with all the other shitholes.

We need gun control to stop the irresponsible, Nazis, and mentally disturbed from having access to guns. America is a capitalist shithole. Only communism could save it.

You have that totally backwards.
What gives Fascists power IS gun control.
The only way to reduce fascism is to end gun control first.

The reason Hitler was able to massacre all the Spartacus League in Germany was that there was such strict gun control.
Only Hitlers forces were exempt, because the SA were a privileged veterans society that claimed to be promoting marksmanship.

No progressive, liberal, or leftest would ever support gun control.
Gun control has always been used to murder anyone against racism or for things like labor unions.

Nazis supported guns for Nazis. That helped them kill Jews in the Holocaust.

All right, I think I've hit my limit of "Too fucking stupid to create a post without the word 'Nazi' in it."

When brain transplants become a thing, do come back and show us that you have an actual vocabulary, mouthbreather.

FLUSH!

Come now. Show me a blog without a troll, and I"ll show you a Democrat with dignity.

He's over there, right next to the unicorn farting rainbows.