Las Vegas Shooter's Criminal Past---Buh, Buh, BUh, He's Got RIGHTS!

[depotoo]

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=9fRi7nkX8NA]Homeowner shoots, kills bear - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Still waiting.

Still waiting for what?

For you to support your lie...er...position that that Case law corrupted original intent.

Please begin.

Of course, we both know you cannot, as your next post will prove.

Well it's you that keeps going back to case law.

That in itself? Is golden and germane to my argument.

Again..I challenge you.

Find that Clauses that support your contention in the United States Constitution.

Do you need a link?

U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

I like that one since it has convenient links to all the sections.

But google will help you as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still waiting for what?

For you to support your lie...er...position that that Case law corrupted original intent.

Please begin.

Of course, we both know you cannot, as your next post will prove.

Well it's you that keeps going back to case law.

That in itself? Is golden and germane to my argument.

Sorry... don't see where you've shown original intent of the 2nd, and I don't see where you've shown how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it. Feel free to try again

But then, we both know you cannot show those things, and so your response will be nothing but a pre-pubescent attempt to avoid doing so.

 

[daws101]

And your point, remains negated.

false you not answering is not the same as negation...great dodge though...

You apparently missed my post.

You claim that your question is central to your point.

You have a right, protected by the constitution, to own a gun for any and every traditionally legal use you might have for one.

Your "point" falls flat in the face of that fact - and so, there's no need to address your question.

still dodging, the fact that I have that right is not germane ..it has no relation to the ability or lack thereof accurately operating more than one fire arm at a time.
no matter how many times you repeat it..

 

[daws101]

If you truly were around guns you would know one size does not fit allnsituations, and even well maintained guns can jam.

that's rationalizing. it's extremely rare for a well maintained quality firearm to jam...
can jam and do jam enough to be unreliable are two separate arguments.

Only because you want it to be. Fact. And I know you will never concede to the Fact criminals wouldn't hold to this requirement. Fact.
Nor will you concede to the fact one type gun does not work in all situations. Fact.

ah..... this discussion stopped being about what criminals do or won't do long ago. also you presented nothing for me to concede too...
oh yea, if the gun shoots, then it works...

 

[Sallow]

For you to support your lie...er...position that that Case law corrupted original intent.

Please begin.

Of course, we both know you cannot, as your next post will prove.

Well it's you that keeps going back to case law.

That in itself? Is golden and germane to my argument.

Sorry... don't see where you've shown original intent of the 2nd, and I don't see where you've shown how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it. Feel free to try again

But then, we both know you cannot show those things, and so your response will be nothing but a pre-pubescent attempt to avoid doing so.

At this point you are in full rejection mode and "declaring victory" without making any reasonable or valid points. Additionally you haven't even bothered to look at the Constitution.

I am right.

The Constitution has NOTHING in it on a strict reading that remotely supports case law or your contention.

Hence..it's been corrupted.

Simple as that.

 

[depotoo]

false you not answering is not the same as negation...great dodge though...

You apparently missed my post.

You claim that your question is central to your point.

You have a right, protected by the constitution, to own a gun for any and every traditionally legal use you might have for one.

Your "point" falls flat in the face of that fact - and so, there's no need to address your question.

still dodging, the fact that I have that right is not germane ..it has no relation to the ability or lack thereof accurately operating more than one fire arm at a time.
no matter how many times you repeat it..

Nor will your continued repeating it change the fact that not any one gun is suitable in every case of need. Or would have changed the outcome of this case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

false you not answering is not the same as negation...great dodge though...

You apparently missed my post.

You claim that your question is central to your point.

You have a right, protected by the constitution, to own a gun for any and every traditionally legal use you might have for one.

Your "point" falls flat in the face of that fact - and so, there's no need to address your question.

still dodging...

There's no need to dodge a meaningless question - or answer one.

the fact that I have that right is not germane

If you want to argue that there can be a limit to the number of guns you can own, then the scope of your right to own guns is most certainly germane.

it has no relation to the ability or lack thereof accurately operating more than one fire arm at a time.

Which is meaningless to the argument noted above.

You have a right, protected by the constitution, to own a gun for any and every traditionally legal use you might have for one; if there are 1000 such uses, then you have the right to own 1000 guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well it's you that keeps going back to case law.

That in itself? Is golden and germane to my argument.

Sorry... don't see where you've shown original intent of the 2nd, and I don't see where you've shown how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it. Feel free to try again

But then, we both know you cannot show those things, and so your response will be nothing but a pre-pubescent attempt to avoid doing so.

At this point you are in full rejection mode and "declaring victory" without making any reasonable or valid points. Additionally you haven't even bothered to look at the Constitution.

Thank you for proving that you cannot show original intent of the 2nd or how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it, as per your claim.

Just like I said.

 

[Sallow]

Sorry... don't see where you've shown original intent of the 2nd, and I don't see where you've shown how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it. Feel free to try again

But then, we both know you cannot show those things, and so your response will be nothing but a pre-pubescent attempt to avoid doing so.

At this point you are in full rejection mode and "declaring victory" without making any reasonable or valid points. Additionally you haven't even bothered to look at the Constitution.

Thank you for proving that you cannot show original intent of the 2nd or how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it, as per your claim.

Just like I said.

I already have.

And to expand on this..

I will play the strict constitionalist.

You play the other strict constitutionalist.

Using that criteria? (Which means using the exact words of the United States Constitution) Back up your contention you have all these gun rights.

Go.

 

[daws101]

You apparently missed my post.

You claim that your question is central to your point.

You have a right, protected by the constitution, to own a gun for any and every traditionally legal use you might have for one.

Your "point" falls flat in the face of that fact - and so, there's no need to address your question.

still dodging, the fact that I have that right is not germane ..it has no relation to the ability or lack thereof accurately operating more than one fire arm at a time.
no matter how many times you repeat it..

Nor will your continued repeating it change the fact that not any one gun is suitable in every case of need. Or would have changed the outcome of this case.

I agree with the last part the only thing that would have stopped this case is if he and his girl were killed before hand......

 

[M14 Shooter]

At this point you are in full rejection mode and "declaring victory" without making any reasonable or valid points. Additionally you haven't even bothered to look at the Constitution.

Thank you for proving that you cannot show original intent of the 2nd or how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it, as per your claim.

Just like I said.

I already have.

Another lie.
Disagree?
Please cite the post and the text found therein where you:
- illustrated the original intent of the 2nd
- described how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it.

We both know you will, again, fail to do so.

 

[Sallow]

Thank you for proving that you cannot show original intent of the 2nd or how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it, as per your claim.

Just like I said.

I already have.

Another lie.
Disagree?
Please cite the post and the text found therein where you:
- illustrated the original intent of the 2nd
- described how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it.

We both know you will, again, fail to do so.

Stop cutting my ******* posts in half.

I fully explained to you how and why the amendment was and is corrupted.

And as an object lesson I invited you to support your claim that you have all these gun rights.

And I EVEN provided you with link to the Constitution.

It's seems by your constant deflection and game playing you cannot do this.

Which basically means.

I am right.

You are wrong.

Deal with it.

 

[Plasmaball]

I wonder how many whiny threads on this topic Pee Party is going to create today.

we at 100+ like the taliban deal reached?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Good, moral, upstanding, patriotic, right-wing, cop-killing Christian Conservative Republican Teabaggers.

Metro released a statement that they acted alone. Don't let facts get in your way........

KNB wasn't inferring that they acted with others. He was satirically describing the shooters themselves. [[[rolling eyes]]]

The funny thing is though, it's people like him that let criminals out of prison because of "Good" behavior and rehabilitation and shit.....and now blames the right? He's a ******* retard, kill or keep criminals locked up...problem solved.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already have.

Another lie.
Disagree?
Please cite the post and the text found therein where you:
- illustrated the original intent of the 2nd
- describe how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it.

We both know you will, again, fail to do so.

Stop cutting my ******* posts in half.

Sorry. As a thnking person, I can only take so much of your dishonesty before I gag.

I fully explained to you how and why the amendment was and is corrupted.

This is a lie; you have doine no such thing, at least not to the intellectual level necessary to -prove- your position.

You have done nothing but lie, and you know it.

Disagree?
- illustrate the original intent of the 2nd
- describe how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it.

So far, my cat can support your argument better than you have - and he has brain cancer.

 

[Flopper]

An that's why your argument fails. It's based on the assumption that gun laws can't be enforced. The truth is gun laws can work and do work.

Do they? You mean like in Columbine, The Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Newtown, ...

All gun free zones. Yeah, gun laws work, they maximize the carnage. If that's your goal, they work just fine.

Many areas in the US with tough Gun laws don't work because there're state or local laws, not national. A short trip across the state, city, or county line and you have access to plenty of guns with few restrictions. Hawaii which is isolated has some the toughest gun laws in the country and sports one the lowest murder rates. Other countries with strict gun laws confirm the fact that strict national gun laws lowers the murder rate.

 

[kaz]

An that's why your argument fails. It's based on the assumption that gun laws can't be enforced. The truth is gun laws can work and do work.

Do they? You mean like in Columbine, The Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Newtown, ...

All gun free zones. Yeah, gun laws work, they maximize the carnage. If that's your goal, they work just fine.

Many areas in the US with tough Gun laws don't work because there're state or local laws, not national. A short trip across the state, city, or county line and you have access to plenty of guns with few restrictions. Hawaii which is isolated has some the toughest gun laws in the country and sports one the lowest murder rates. Other countries with strict gun laws confirm the fact that strict national gun laws lowers the murder rate.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

Now if you can put 2 and 2 together...

 

[Sallow]

Another lie.
Disagree?
Please cite the post and the text found therein where you:
- illustrated the original intent of the 2nd
- describe how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it.

We both know you will, again, fail to do so.

Stop cutting my ******* posts in half.

Sorry. As a thnking person, I can only take so much of your dishonesty before I gag.

I fully explained to you how and why the amendment was and is corrupted.

This is a lie; you have doine no such thing, at least not to the intellectual level necessary to -prove- your position.

You have done nothing but lie, and you know it.

Disagree?
- illustrate the original intent of the 2nd
- describe how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it.

So far, my cat can support your argument better than you have - and he has brain cancer.

First off I've explained it all.

Secondly I set up some pretty simple criteria for you.

You refuse to accept the answer or use the criteria.

And use insults to boot.

You are like a pigeon losing an chess game..

You shit on the board and strut around like you won.

You haven't.

Quite the contrary.

 

[Sallow]

Do they? You mean like in Columbine, The Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Newtown, ...

All gun free zones. Yeah, gun laws work, they maximize the carnage. If that's your goal, they work just fine.

Many areas in the US with tough Gun laws don't work because there're state or local laws, not national. A short trip across the state, city, or county line and you have access to plenty of guns with few restrictions. Hawaii which is isolated has some the toughest gun laws in the country and sports one the lowest murder rates. Other countries with strict gun laws confirm the fact that strict national gun laws lowers the murder rate.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

Now if you can put 2 and 2 together...

Guns + Guns = Lots of dead people.

Yep..easy equation.