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

[kaz]

false it would make the killing harder for the aforementioned nut job's and criminals

It would be easier and less expensive - in every context - to get rid of the nutjobs and criminals.

you get no disagreement from me....
the rub is how.

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.

my guess is the tea party minions would go for the shower and ovens option...

Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

 

[daws101]

It would be easier and less expensive - in every context - to get rid of the nutjobs and criminals.

you get no disagreement from me....
the rub is how.
my guess is the tea party minions would go for the shower and ovens option...

Of course that's your mindless, bigoted, partisan guess.
:roll:

no that's not...given the average education level and emotional make up tea party folks that is just what they'd do.
it's like the old joke " bang stop or I'll shoot.
what would be your solution o wise one?

 

[martybegan]

your ignorance slip is showing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.

What part of that says the government can limit the # of guns I own? That's infringement.

And before you go on the militia tangent, The first part of the amendment prohibits the government from banning the states from having militias/armed forces. the 2nd part is what says the people have the right to keep and bear ARMS, not an arm the government lets you have, not one arm, not only 20 rounds of ammunition at a time. ARMS.

false the first part grants the use of fire arms it does not prohibit anything.
again you're reading in to it what's not there.
arms is there because muskets could only shoot at best one round a minute.. I'm fairly sure that if automatic weapons a high capacity clips existed then the amendment would have been different.

Wrong, there is nothing granted in the 2nd amendment to the people or the States, what is there is prohibition on the federal government (and through the 14th amendment the State governments) from infringing on the people's inherent right to keep and bear arms.
The right to defend oneself using appropriate means was seen as intrinsic by the founders, not as something for the government to grant.

The first part indicated that the feds could not restrict the States from forming militias.

 

[daws101]

One which you have no solution to, so what's your point?

And you're clueless believing that when you have criminals and nut jobs that even if you could get rid of the guns that would solve the problem.

false it would make the killing harder for the aforementioned nut job's and criminals

So your thought is they're going to say crap, I had to work a little harder to get a gun. Screw it, I'm not going to go on that shooting spree now, too much work.

You're a simpleton.

Also, they like your plan that no one's shooting back, that works for them.

you really should learn to read...
as to shooting back, if you gun advocates shoot like you talk, no one is safe.

 

[daws101]

It would be easier and less expensive - in every context - to get rid of the nutjobs and criminals.

you get no disagreement from me....
the rub is how.

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.

my guess is the tea party minions would go for the shower and ovens option...

Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

oh so cramming more offenders in to an all ready broken prison system is your solution.

 

[Star]

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.

In my gun club's coffee shop a fellow member said, we should have the same open carry laws they have in Israel -- cuz they don't have much gun violence in Israel.
Knowing absolutely nothing about Israel's gun violence or gun laws, I looked up Israel's gun laws. If Wikipedia's info is correct, it looks to me like (with a tweak here and there) Israel's gun laws are lot like the SCOTUS' 1903 interpretation of it's own 1792 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. How does SCOTUS' interpretation(s) match up with your interpretation of "original intent"


Israel[edit]

A firearms license is required to own firearms and air pistols and rifles. Soldiers are allowed to carry their personal weapons and ammunition together while on furlough during active service, uniformed or in civilian clothing. Self-defense firearms may be carried in public, concealed or openly, together with ammunition, without needing any additional permits. Israel is notable for being a country with few places where firearms are off limits to licensed individuals (private premises, some government offices and institutions, courts).



To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, have no criminal record, be in good health, have no history of mental illness, pass a weapons-training course, and be over a certain age:

• 20 for women who completed military service or civil service equivalent
• 21 for men who completed military service or civil service equivalent
• 27 for those who did not complete military service or civil service equivalent
• 45 for residents of East Jerusalem.

Gun licenses must be renewed every three years and permits are given only for personal use, not for business in the firearms sale while holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun, and may purchase a maximum of fifty rounds a year, except for those shot at firing ranges.



The list of below personnel are eligible for licenses allowing them to possess firearms:

• Israel Defense Forces officers honorably discharged with the rank of non-commissioned officer
• Reservists honorably discharged with the rank of regimental commander
• Ex–special forces enlisted men
• Retired police officers with the rank of sergeant
• Retired prison guards with the rank of squadron commander
• Licensed public transportation drivers transporting a minimum of five people
• Full-time dealers of jewellery or large sums of cash or valuables
• Civil Guard volunteers
• Residents of militarily strategic buffer zones considered essential to state security
  • Such personnel are allowed to possess one handgun.
• Reservists honorably discharged with the rank of regimental commander are also eligible for licences allowing them to possess one rifle.
• Licensed hunters may possess one shotgun
• Licensed animal-control officers are allowed to possess two rifles
• Civil Guard snipers may possess one rifle.

In addition to private licenses of firearms, organizations can issue carry licenses to their members for activity related to that organization (e.g. security companies, shooting clubs, other workplaces).

Members of officially recognized shooting clubs (practical shooting, Olympic shooting) are eligible for personal licenses allowing them to possess additional firearms (small bore rifles, handguns, air rifles, and air pistols) after demonstrating a need and fulfilling minimum membership time and activity requirements. Unlicensed individuals are allowed supervised use of pistols at firing ranges.

In 2005, there were 236,879 private citizens and 154,000 security guards licensed to carry firearms. Another 34,000 Israelis who were previously licensed own guns illegally due to their failure to renew their gun license.[79][80] In 2007, there were estimated to be 500,000 civilian licensed guns in Israel, in addition to 1,757,500 in the military, and 26,040 in the police.[81][82]
To legally own a gun as a souvenir, prize, inheritance, or award of appreciation from the military, an individual must first present proper documentation that they are about to receive it. Permits for gun collectors are extremely rare, and typically only given to ex-high-ranking officers.

Overview of gun laws by nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you get no disagreement from me....
the rub is how.
my guess is the tea party minions would go for the shower and ovens option...

Of course that's your mindless, bigoted, partisan guess.
:roll:

no that's not...given the average education level and emotional make up tea party folks that is just what they'd do.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[kaz]

you get no disagreement from me....
the rub is how.

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.

my guess is the tea party minions would go for the shower and ovens option...

Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

oh so cramming more offenders in to an all ready broken prison system is your solution.

So much better to have them on the street. All we have to do is make sure they can't get guns and everything will be fine!

 

[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
- described how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it.

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

In my gun club's coffee shop a fellow member said, we should have the same open carry laws they have in Israel -- cuz they don't have much gun violence in Israel.
Knowing absolutely nothing about Israel's gun violence or gun laws, I looked up Israel's gun laws. If Wikipedia's info is correct, it looks to me like (with a tweak here and there) Israel's gun laws are lot like the SCOTUS' 1903 interpretation of it's own 1792 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. How does SCOTUS' interpretation(s) match up with your interpretation of "original intent"

Your link to the "1903 interpretation" is hilarious, especially when it argues that Heller allows gun control advocates to connect further gun control to service in the militia when the decision excplicity states that the right and the protects afforded to it are not connected to the militia in any way.

The right of the people is protected by the constitution. Whatever reasons there might be for this, the people - not the state, not the militia - have the right.

Some want to argue that the right to arms so protected is fully connected to the service in the militia, and there exists no other right to arms, protected or otherwise, outside that service - that is, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd fully intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual. For that, there is absolutely no historical support in that there exists no primary source material describing any such sentiment

As it is impossible to prove the existence of that original intent, it is impossible to show that current jurisprudence "corrupts" said original intent.

Its that simple.

 

[Star]

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.

In my gun club's coffee shop a fellow member said, we should have the same open carry laws they have in Israel -- cuz they don't have much gun violence in Israel.
Knowing absolutely nothing about Israel's gun violence or gun laws, I looked up Israel's gun laws. If Wikipedia's info is correct, it looks to me like (with a tweak here and there) Israel's gun laws are lot like the SCOTUS' 1903 interpretation of it's own 1792 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. How does SCOTUS' interpretation(s) match up with your interpretation of "original intent"

Your link to the "1903 interpretation" is hilarious, especially when it argues that Heller allows gun control advocates to connect further gun control to service in the militia when the decision excplicity states that the right and the protects afforded to it are not connected to the militia in any way.

The right of the people is protected by the constitution. Whatever reasons there might be for this, the people - not the state, not the militia - have the right.

Some want to argue that the right to arms so protected is fully connected to the service in the militia, and there exists no other right to arms, protected or otherwise, outside that service - that is, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd fully intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual. For that, there is absolutely no historical support in that there exists no primary source material describing any such sentiment

As it is impossible to prove the existence of that original intent, it is impossible to show that current jurisprudence "corrupts" said original intent.

Its that simple.

You're basing your entire interpretation of "original intent" on SCOTUS' 2008 ruling on Heller vs DC?
.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In my gun club's coffee shop a fellow member said, we should have the same open carry laws they have in Israel -- cuz they don't have much gun violence in Israel.
Knowing absolutely nothing about Israel's gun violence or gun laws, I looked up Israel's gun laws. If Wikipedia's info is correct, it looks to me like (with a tweak here and there) Israel's gun laws are lot like the SCOTUS' 1903 interpretation of it's own 1792 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. How does SCOTUS' interpretation(s) match up with your interpretation of "original intent"

Your link to the "1903 interpretation" is hilarious, especially when it argues that Heller allows gun control advocates to connect further gun control to service in the militia when the decision excplicity states that the right and the protects afforded to it are not connected to the militia in any way.

The right of the people is protected by the constitution. Whatever reasons there might be for this, the people - not the state, not the militia - have the right.

Some want to argue that the right to arms so protected is fully connected to the service in the militia, and there exists no other right to arms, protected or otherwise, outside that service - that is, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd fully intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual. For that, there is absolutely no historical support in that there exists no primary source material describing any such sentiment

As it is impossible to prove the existence of that original intent, it is impossible to show that current jurisprudence "corrupts" said original intent.

Its that simple.

You're basing your entire interpretation of "original intent" on SCOTUS' 2008 ruling on Heller vs DC?
.

Read what I said:

Some want to argue that the [original intent surrounding the] right to arms so protected is fully connected to the service in the militia, and there exists no other right to arms, protected or otherwise, outside that service - that is, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd fully intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual. For that, there is absolutely no historical support in that there exists no primary source material describing any such sentiment

As it is impossible to prove the existence of that original intent, it is impossible to show that current jurisprudence "corrupts" said original intent.

 

[Star]

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.



Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

oh so cramming more offenders in to an all ready broken prison system is your solution.

So much better to have them on the street. All we have to do is make sure they can't get guns and everything will be fine!

As usual, a Republican makes a sweeping statement - in this case using the word "them" without defining who "them" is but-----but even better than putting "them" in prison would be solving a crime's root problem(s).
.

 

[kaz]

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.

oh so cramming more offenders in to an all ready broken prison system is your solution.

So much better to have them on the street. All we have to do is make sure they can't get guns and everything will be fine!

As usual, a Republican makes a sweeping statement - in this case using the word "them" without defining who "them" is but-----but even better than putting "them" in prison would be solving a crime's root problem(s).
.

"They" were defined inside your quote, dumb-ass. And what "sweeping statement" are you talking about? How is what I said any more "sweeping" than anyone else is saying in the discussion?

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a "Republican." Yet another simpleton Democrat who sees the world as black and white, us and them, Democrat and Republican. People are one or the other, that's all you grasp.

 

[daws101]

Of course that's your mindless, bigoted, partisan guess.
:roll:

no that's not...given the average education level and emotional make up tea party folks that is just what they'd do.

Thank you for proving my point.

no, no thanks for proving mine

 

[daws101]

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.



Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

oh so cramming more offenders in to an all ready broken prison system is your solution.

So much better to have them on the street. All we have to do is make sure they can't get guns and everything will be fine!

right! better prisons make better criminals !

 

[daws101]

So much better to have them on the street. All we have to do is make sure they can't get guns and everything will be fine!

As usual, a Republican makes a sweeping statement - in this case using the word "them" without defining who "them" is but-----but even better than putting "them" in prison would be solving a crime's root problem(s).
.

"They" were defined inside your quote, dumb-ass. And what "sweeping statement" are you talking about? How is what I said any more "sweeping" than anyone else is saying in the discussion?

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a "Republican." Yet another simpleton Democrat who sees the world as black and white, us and them, Democrat and Republican. People are one or the other, that's all you grasp.

a libertarian IS just a tea bagger on speed...

 

[kaz]

As usual, a Republican makes a sweeping statement - in this case using the word "them" without defining who "them" is but-----but even better than putting "them" in prison would be solving a crime's root problem(s).
.

"They" were defined inside your quote, dumb-ass. And what "sweeping statement" are you talking about? How is what I said any more "sweeping" than anyone else is saying in the discussion?

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a "Republican." Yet another simpleton Democrat who sees the world as black and white, us and them, Democrat and Republican. People are one or the other, that's all you grasp.

a libertarian IS just a tea bagger on speed...

I'm pro-choice, for legalization of drugs, prostitution and gambling, oppose morality laws like gay being sodomy and I'm unlike the Democratic party against the endless use of our military overseas and want it used only for direct defense of the United States.

In your dim fog of stupidity you still see "Republican" like a neon sign. Of course you do, you're a moron.

 

[kaz]

oh so cramming more offenders in to an all ready broken prison system is your solution.

So much better to have them on the street. All we have to do is make sure they can't get guns and everything will be fine!

right! better prisons make better criminals !

Um...no...criminals in jail don't commit crimes. And the view you can keep sharp and pointy objects from criminals on the street so they aren't a threat to anyone is clueless beyond belief. Par for your course.

 

[koshergrl]

duhs is one of the brilliant ones who thinks that if a person isn't a democrat, then that person is a tea partier.

I think they think tea party = everybody who isn't an extremist leftist.

 

[daws101]

"They" were defined inside your quote, dumb-ass. And what "sweeping statement" are you talking about? How is what I said any more "sweeping" than anyone else is saying in the discussion?

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a "Republican." Yet another simpleton Democrat who sees the world as black and white, us and them, Democrat and Republican. People are one or the other, that's all you grasp.

a libertarian IS just a tea bagger on speed...

I'm pro-choice, for legalization of drugs, prostitution and gambling, oppose morality laws like gay being sodomy and I'm unlike the Democratic party against the endless use of our military overseas and want it used only for direct defense of the United States.

In your dim fog of stupidity you still see "Republican" like a neon sign. Of course you do, you're a moron.

again you just wish I did...
the way you yammer on about stupid leads me to conclude you are far more worried about your own intelligence than is rational..