Nevada Governor vetoes offensive Gun control bill.

[Quantum Windbag]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like ******* assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

Should the government be able to track it when you sell a washing machine? How about books? If not, why not?

That is why they shouldn't be able to track all gun sales.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, they don't cover off on sales between individuals. That makes it way to easy for a lunatic to purchase a used gun without needing a background check.

I am amazed that you actually think an illegal gun dealer, i.e. the gangbanger on the street, and a psycho wanting to buy a gun are going to give a shit about running a frigging background check.

Enhanced background checks sound wonderful, but only a fool thinks they will accomplish anything more than adding a few dollars to the government slush fund.

Immie

And what's your solution besides nothing?
You people offer no solutions, just excuses..

You wont stop people. Its a poor example. Out there someone might want to kill you and hey who cares right? We bother trying to stop them because in the end they will find a way.
Really its a great outlook on life. How about we just remove cops period? I mean under your opinion they are redundant.

Your solution is to make life more difficult for everyone but the criminals and the crazy people? In what ******* universe does that make sense?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like ******* assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Compromise means that each side gives something that the other wants in order to get someting that each side wants for itself.

The anti-gun side cannot give the pro-gun side anything, and so it is impossible for the pro-gun side to compromise.

So.... the anti-gun side doesnt really want compromise from the pro-gun side, it wants acquiescence.

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.

Please cite the case, and the text to that effect.

He can't, it doesn't exist. What they actually said is that it is a reasonable infringement.

They were wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, they don't cover off on sales between individuals. That makes it way to easy for a lunatic to purchase a used gun without needing a background check.

I am amazed that you actually think an illegal gun dealer, i.e. the gangbanger on the street, and a psycho wanting to buy a gun are going to give a shit about running a frigging background check.

Enhanced background checks sound wonderful, but only a fool thinks they will accomplish anything more than adding a few dollars to the government slush fund.

Immie

So should we legalize rape? Murder? Child molestation? They're just going to happen anyway, despite the laws we have, right?

That the best you can do?

To put this in perspective, what you are arguing for is that you be required to prove that you are not a child molester before you walk out of your house. Doing it once wouldn't be enough, because you might have molested a child in the time since the last check, so we will conduct the check every time you get withing 5 miles of a child.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like ******* assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

How much more compromising do you want?

Look at the 20k gun laws already on the books.. Each and everyone of a compromise of the "Shall not be infringed" statement in the Constitution.

When will you gun grabbers be satisfied that there are enough laws and restrictions on guns and that there are evil people in the world who will kill other people regardless of the laws?

You can buy whatever gun you want with whatever rounds and size clips you want. You can buy a tank for all I care. Just have the proper permits and pass a background check.

Thats it. If you cant agree with this simple reasoning then simply **** off.

Here is a conundrum. You want background checks for those of us who want to buy a gun. But when it comes to abortion and contraception, you allow a girl of any age to buy abortifacients. Why don't you make women wanting an abortion have a background check? I mean that's where the actual killing happens.

"Guns kill people" my ass.

 

[Plasmaball]

How much more compromising do you want?

Look at the 20k gun laws already on the books.. Each and everyone of a compromise of the "Shall not be infringed" statement in the Constitution.

When will you gun grabbers be satisfied that there are enough laws and restrictions on guns and that there are evil people in the world who will kill other people regardless of the laws?

You can buy whatever gun you want with whatever rounds and size clips you want. You can buy a tank for all I care. Just have the proper permits and pass a background check.

Thats it. If you cant agree with this simple reasoning then simply **** off.

Here is a conundrum. You want background checks for those of us who want to buy a gun. But when it comes to abortion and contraception, you allow a girl of any age to buy abortifacients. Why don't you make women wanting an abortion have a background check? I mean that's where the actual killing happens.

"Guns kill people" my ass.

ok abortion is not guns...Seriously of all the things you can use, you go with abortion? This wasnt a conundrum, it was ******* moronic.

Look people kill people and a gun is a tool. A car is a tool and it kills people as well. You have to register that in order to drive.

Can you at least try to bring something to the table? you are boring me with your fails..

Abortion lol....

 

[Plasmaball]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like ******* assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Compromise means that each side gives something that the other wants in order to get someting that each side wants for itself.

The anti-gun side cannot give the pro-gun side anything, and so it is impossible for the pro-gun side to compromise.

So.... the anti-gun side doesnt really want compromise from the pro-gun side, it wants acquiescence.

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.

Please cite the case, and the text to that effect.

He can't, it doesn't exist. What they actually said is that it is a reasonable infringement.

They were wrong.

nope.....but this is where we go into Windbag knows better than everyone ever modes, and i really am not up for wading through that bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Compromise means that each side gives something that the other wants in order to get someting that each side wants for itself.

The anti-gun side cannot give the pro-gun side anything, and so it is impossible for the pro-gun side to compromise.

So.... the anti-gun side doesnt really want compromise from the pro-gun side, it wants acquiescence.

Please cite the case, and the text to that effect.

He can't, it doesn't exist. What they actually said is that it is a reasonable infringement.

They were wrong.

nope.....but this is where we go into Windbag knows better than everyone ever modes, and i really am not up for wading through that bullshit.

Because you know every time you argue with me you lose, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can buy whatever gun you want with whatever rounds and size clips you want. You can buy a tank for all I care. Just have the proper permits and pass a background check.

Thats it. If you cant agree with this simple reasoning then simply **** off.

Here is a conundrum. You want background checks for those of us who want to buy a gun. But when it comes to abortion and contraception, you allow a girl of any age to buy abortifacients. Why don't you make women wanting an abortion have a background check? I mean that's where the actual killing happens.

"Guns kill people" my ass.

ok abortion is not guns...Seriously of all the things you can use, you go with abortion? This wasnt a conundrum, it was ******* moronic.

Look people kill people and a gun is a tool. A car is a tool and it kills people as well. You have to register that in order to drive.

Can you at least try to bring something to the table? you are boring me with your fails..

Abortion lol....

But somehow you think guns do more killing. How deluded you are. Cars kill more people than guns, drug use kills more people than guns, cancer kills more people than guns, ABORTION kills more people than guns. The conundrum, Plasmaball, is that you let people get away with slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unborn children, but if someone so much as owns a gun, it makes them a ruthless killer. Say, don't you have your priorities mixed up?

There are already background checks, as I recall there have been over 65 million background checks performed in this country during Obama's presidency! You don't need a registry of every gun owner in America, you need a registry of those who commit crimes with guns, or who lets theirs fall into the hands of a minor. What you suggest is an invasion of the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of all law abiding gun owners!

 

[Plasmaball]

He can't, it doesn't exist. What they actually said is that it is a reasonable infringement.

They were wrong.

nope.....but this is where we go into Windbag knows better than everyone ever modes, and i really am not up for wading through that bullshit.

Because you know every time you argue with me you lose, right?

Thank you for proving my point. you are a tool

 

[Plasmaball]

Here is a conundrum. You want background checks for those of us who want to buy a gun. But when it comes to abortion and contraception, you allow a girl of any age to buy abortifacients. Why don't you make women wanting an abortion have a background check? I mean that's where the actual killing happens.

"Guns kill people" my ass.

ok abortion is not guns...Seriously of all the things you can use, you go with abortion? This wasnt a conundrum, it was ******* moronic.

Look people kill people and a gun is a tool. A car is a tool and it kills people as well. You have to register that in order to drive.

Can you at least try to bring something to the table? you are boring me with your fails..

Abortion lol....

But somehow you think guns do more killing. How deluded you are. Cars kill more people than guns, drug use kills more people than guns, cancer kills more people than guns, ABORTION kills more people than guns. The conundrum, Plasmaball, is that you let people get away with slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unborn children, but if someone so much as owns a gun, it makes them a ruthless killer. Say, don't you have your priorities mixed up?

There are already background checks, as I recall there have been over 65 million background checks performed in this country during Obama's presidency!. You don't need a registry of every gun owner in America, you need a registry of those who commit crimes with guns, or who lets theirs fall into the hands of a minor. This is an invasion of the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of all law abiding gun owners!

I said guns are tools just like a car.

Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. Im not impressed at all.

You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.

waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

keep swinging....

 

[RDD_1210]

First - I don't own a gun. If I decide to buy one, I don't think it's the government business to know about it. I have no problem with a check to ensure I'm not a felon.

Second, as a Nevadan and American and retired army veteran, I completely agree with the governor's decision to veto this stupid bill.

The lefties here in Nevada - and elsewhere - are going to make a big deal of it but a lot of Nevadans will remember this positively when Sandoval runs again.

Good on him!!!

[He didn't run the poll - lefties did!]

If you have no problems with a background check to ensure you are not a felon, then what exactly is your problem with this bill? Specifically.

Specifically?

Its intent is to restrict rights.

Which rights are being restricted? Specifically.

 

[RDD_1210]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like ******* assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

Should the government be able to track it when you sell a washing machine? How about books? If not, why not?

That is why they shouldn't be able to track all gun sales.

Holy **** you create the worst analogies....ie. The gem you put in my signature.

 

[westwall]

Offensive? What is offensive about requiring background checks for gun purchases? Are you afraid of offending criminals?

JED i think a lot of people are afraid it does not stop after the check.....that your name will go onto the big....."HE HAS A GUN" govt list......and on that....i understand their distrust......

Which is why the recent gun legislation that didn't pass had in it a provision that disallowed a registry. So...

Not the Nevada bill that is the subject of this OP. It most certainly DID have a registry component.

 

[westwall]

ok abortion is not guns...Seriously of all the things you can use, you go with abortion? This wasnt a conundrum, it was ******* moronic.

Look people kill people and a gun is a tool. A car is a tool and it kills people as well. You have to register that in order to drive.

Can you at least try to bring something to the table? you are boring me with your fails..

Abortion lol....

But somehow you think guns do more killing. How deluded you are. Cars kill more people than guns, drug use kills more people than guns, cancer kills more people than guns, ABORTION kills more people than guns. The conundrum, Plasmaball, is that you let people get away with slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unborn children, but if someone so much as owns a gun, it makes them a ruthless killer. Say, don't you have your priorities mixed up?

There are already background checks, as I recall there have been over 65 million background checks performed in this country during Obama's presidency!. You don't need a registry of every gun owner in America, you need a registry of those who commit crimes with guns, or who lets theirs fall into the hands of a minor. This is an invasion of the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of all law abiding gun owners!

I said guns are tools just like a car.

Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. Im not impressed at all.

You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.

waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

keep swinging....

I'm so happy you have no problem surrendering your rights. However, when you start trying to abrogate mine, I take issue with that. To date there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books and not one has ever been shown to have prevented a crime.

You are totally wrong on your read of US V Miller, they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no forseeable military purpose". Their ruling had nothing to do with the civilian useage of weapons at the time.

Further, once the law was passed the ATF's precurser took it upon themselves (like all bureaucracies do) to add weapons to the controlled list via non-legislative "rules". They have passed thousands of rules that most people have no knowledge of.

And that leads to the final issue which is namely once something is regulated, the regulations can be made ever more onerous. But you anti civil rights propagandists know that, you simply don't care. You want power over the population and you willuse whatever nefarious methods you have to to obtain your goal.

 

[Staidhup]

Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks

So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.

I used to think we needed gun control. Then I found out that two thirds of ALL gun related deaths in the US were suicide. Most of them were white guys in Red States. That makes them Republicans. Then I realized that every cloud has a silver lining. It's not guns who kill people. It's the GOP killing themselves. And all that talk about how dangerous Chicago is and it turns out that Illinois is like 34th in gun related deaths. And that the most are in Red States that have the fewest regulations.

So it looks like we may be on the same side after all. GOOD JOB!

You still don't get it do you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you have no problems with a background check to ensure you are not a felon, then what exactly is your problem with this bill? Specifically.

Specifically?

Its intent is to restrict rights.

Which rights are being restricted? Specifically.

The right of private individuals not to have to get the prior approval of the government to transfer ownership of property.

Specifically.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like ******* assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?

Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.

Should the government be able to track it when you sell a washing machine? How about books? If not, why not?

That is why they shouldn't be able to track all gun sales.

Holy **** you create the worst analogies....ie. The gem you put in my signature.

Books are a lot more dangerous to governments than guns.

 

[Noomi]

Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks

So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.

A background check could save a life. Obviously this proves that Republicans care more about their right to own a shiny metal toy than about saving innocent lives.

 

[TemplarKormac]

ok abortion is not guns...Seriously of all the things you can use, you go with abortion? This wasnt a conundrum, it was ******* moronic.

Look people kill people and a gun is a tool. A car is a tool and it kills people as well. You have to register that in order to drive.

Can you at least try to bring something to the table? you are boring me with your fails..

Abortion lol....

But somehow you think guns do more killing. How deluded you are. Cars kill more people than guns, drug use kills more people than guns, cancer kills more people than guns, ABORTION kills more people than guns. The conundrum, Plasmaball, is that you let people get away with slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unborn children, but if someone so much as owns a gun, it makes them a ruthless killer. Say, don't you have your priorities mixed up?

There are already background checks, as I recall there have been over 65 million background checks performed in this country during Obama's presidency!. You don't need a registry of every gun owner in America, you need a registry of those who commit crimes with guns, or who lets theirs fall into the hands of a minor. This is an invasion of the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of all law abiding gun owners!

I said guns are tools just like a car.

Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. I'm not impressed at all.

You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.

waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

keep swinging....

Oh so you just used Heller on me huh? Read the summary again, tool.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And then we take a look at McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), which essentially reaffirmed Heller, and built upon it. It essentially held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.

Read Justice Alito's majority opinion on the subject here beginning on page 16.

A person's gun is his personal property, as covered in the 4th Amendment, and he has a right to be safe from reprisal by his government for owning it. The 5th Amendment says he has a right to life liberty and property, thus he has a right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment says his rights to use that weapon for self defense or for whatever reason that does not break the law, shall not be restricted. Therefore any restrictions placed on that right would be unconstitutional.

Knocked this one out of the park, buddy. Going, going, gone.