No one is going to take your guns

[Plasmaball]

as usual, you missed the point.

My rights are absolute because they are unalienable. That means that, even if I wanted to, I can't give them up, or even give anyone, including the government, permission to ignore them under certain circumstances. That is why constittional law is so complex, the government exist only to violate and infringe on people's rights, and it has to make up all sorts rationalizations for why it is allowed to do so. That convinces a few idiots, like you, that no rights are absolute.

That still makes you, and the government, wrong, which is why I still have all my rights, even when you sit behind a keyboard and argue that I don't.

So when you're sitting in a jail cell because you committed a felony that you thought was protected by your right to bear arms,

and thus you have lost your 'unalienable' right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

who won that argument?

Me sitting in a jail cell does not mean I lost my rights, even if I actually committed a felony.

I do have a question for you, what if I like being in jail cells? What if that is how I pursue happiness, and I actually go out and commit felonies just so I can get into one. Since I am, quite obviously, pursuing my happiness, how does throwing me in a jail cell prevent me from pursuing happiness?

are you fucking stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this fucking stupid

 

[Plasmaball]

You keep using that word. - YouTube

Then again, what else can we expect from Plasmaball?

just more pointing of your ignorance. I would love to see you in front f a judge trying to say you know better. And then you getting put in cuffs..it would be better than porn

What does any of that have to do with you not knowing the difference between awe and aww?

why do i care about your deflections? because thats all you have.

 

[Plasmaball]

as usual, you missed the point.

My rights are absolute because they are unalienable. That means that, even if I wanted to, I can't give them up, or even give anyone, including the government, permission to ignore them under certain circumstances. That is why constittional law is so complex, the government exist only to violate and infringe on people's rights, and it has to make up all sorts rationalizations for why it is allowed to do so. That convinces a few idiots, like you, that no rights are absolute.

That still makes you, and the government, wrong, which is why I still have all my rights, even when you sit behind a keyboard and argue that I don't.

yeah let me know how that works for you when you yell fire in a crowded room. your ego is your downfall. I love it.

rights are not absolute because they are a fiction made by man and nothing more. They can be bent and conformed to whatever they need to be given for the moment.

So please continue you on about how your rights are absolute, and how everyone else is ignorant of this fact. go tell that to a cop when you get in trouble. Please video it so we an all laugh at you.

Why does everyone who thinks they are smart use an example of a decision that has been overturned to make their point? Is it because they are actually ignorant?

lol...again you keep thinking your right are absolute. Im laughing over here.

 

[Geaux4it]

So when you're sitting in a jail cell because you committed a felony that you thought was protected by your right to bear arms,

and thus you have lost your 'unalienable' right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

who won that argument?

Me sitting in a jail cell does not mean I lost my rights, even if I actually committed a felony.

I do have a question for you, what if I like being in jail cells? What if that is how I pursue happiness, and I actually go out and commit felonies just so I can get into one. Since I am, quite obviously, pursuing my happiness, how does throwing me in a jail cell prevent me from pursuing happiness?

are you fucking stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this fucking stupid

By going to jail you only lose your right to a firearm if you fall under the list of prohibited persons. If it's a felony you're on the list, if its a majority of misdemeanours, that alone does not preclude you from owning a firearm

-Geaux

 

[Harry Dresden]

Clayton Joneser is so smart! What would we ever do without the self-absorbed little prick?

He probably won't be back to this thread, he never sticks around when I trump him with actual court citations.

he very very seldom replies to anything anyway....thats why i call him ...No_Reply_Jones....

 

[freedombecki]

Turns out they lied.

Sherrie Questioning All: The gun grabbers always say "Registration does not lead to Confiscation." Hmm... Seems New York is proving that WRONG - Confiscating weapons, registered in state. Letter proving it

If you think that's bad, Daveman, were you aware that Obamacare applicants have to answer the question "do you own a firearm?"

Guess where that puts a motivated arms removal leader? In the position to have gun owners declared incompetent, that's where. All it takes is one mental health caregiver who has a secret for which he can be coerced into doing something wrong, to issue thousands of firearm removal papers on patients for "mental incapacity" of almost any kind to take them away.

That's just one thing I found out about Obamacare a couple of weeks ago.

Obama is going take people's guns away, and Obamacare is how he, Diane Feinstein, and their ilk are going do it.

 

[henryporter]

Obama's Gun Record Basically Consists Of Expanding Gun Owners' Rights - Business Insider

Major Garrett: Obama has expanded, not reduced gun rights - CBS News

So what is it with right wingers? Tardation or inbreeding that makes them hate Obama for no reason? The GOP being 90% white can't have anything to do with it. They claim they aren't "racist".

One thing is, when one farts they all shit. Not one of those retards has had a gun grabbed....ever. But, this is okay, let them campaign on it, normal people will be thinking WTF!

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not one of those retards has had a gun grabbed....ever. But, this is okay, let them campaign on it, normal people will be thinking WTF!

The reason there has been no blatant confiscation is BECAUSE "they" campaigned and were elected "on it".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Turns out they lied.

Sherrie Questioning All: The gun grabbers always say "Registration does not lead to Confiscation." Hmm... Seems New York is proving that WRONG - Confiscating weapons, registered in state. Letter proving it

You're objecting to law enforcement enforcing a law against possessing an illegal weapon?

lol, classic.

When they make a gun illegal simply because it is capable of holding more than 5 rounds (even bolt action rifles?) you have created a law designed to remove guns, not to remove any specific type of gun.

And such laws remain Constitutional until a Federal court rules otherwise; nor do these laws manifest ‘confiscation’ absent due process and just compensation.

Indeed, the law does not authorize firearms not in compliance be ‘confiscated’:

But those who already own 10-round mags won’t have to do a thing, according to the new law. The Safe Act does not require any modification of any 10-round magazines owned before Jan. 15, when Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act. In fact, the only 10-round magazines that have to be modified are those purchased from Jan. 15 to April 15, when sales in the state are banned.

And the law lets gun owners keep previously owned larger magazines – so long as they are modified down to a seven-round capacity.

While New York’s law limits new purchases of 10-round magazines, the law grandfathers in previously owned ones – with the caveat that shooter only put seven rounds in the clip.

A closer look at criticisms of New York's new gun law | syracuse.com

Again, the magazines are subject to restriction, not the firearms.

That this and similar laws are idiocy is clear, but attempting to get these laws repealed or invalidated with lies and deceit, as is typical of most on the right, is not the way to achieve the desired goal.

 

[Geaux4it]

You're objecting to law enforcement enforcing a law against possessing an illegal weapon?

lol, classic.

When they make a gun illegal simply because it is capable of holding more than 5 rounds (even bolt action rifles?) you have created a law designed to remove guns, not to remove any specific type of gun.

And such laws remain Constitutional until a Federal court rules otherwise; nor do these laws manifest ‘confiscation’ absent due process and just compensation.

Indeed, the law does not authorize firearms not in compliance be ‘confiscated’:

But those who already own 10-round mags won’t have to do a thing, according to the new law. The Safe Act does not require any modification of any 10-round magazines owned before Jan. 15, when Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act. In fact, the only 10-round magazines that have to be modified are those purchased from Jan. 15 to April 15, when sales in the state are banned.

And the law lets gun owners keep previously owned larger magazines – so long as they are modified down to a seven-round capacity.

While New York’s law limits new purchases of 10-round magazines, the law grandfathers in previously owned ones – with the caveat that shooter only put seven rounds in the clip.

A closer look at criticisms of New York's new gun law | syracuse.com

Again, the magazines are subject to restriction, not the firearms.

That this and similar laws are idiocy is clear, but attempting to get these laws repealed or invalidated with lies and deceit, as is typical of most on the right, is not the way to achieve the desired goal.

Man, you are on a wrongathon today. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, it therefore was never constitutional to begin with.

It just means the people were made to live and expected to abide by an unconstitutional law that should of never been allowed to pass

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

NYC is a lost cause in Bloombergs court. The city council, city government etc,. are all hand picked and payed for by Bloombergs personal finances. He puts millions upon millions of his own money to buy the political outcomes.

Bloomberg needs run into someone in a dark alley. One can only dream

-Geaux

 

[daveman]

And such laws remain Constitutional until a Federal court rules otherwise; nor do these laws manifest ‘confiscation’ absent due process and just compensation.

Indeed, the law does not authorize firearms not in compliance be ‘confiscated’:

But those who already own 10-round mags won’t have to do a thing, according to the new law. The Safe Act does not require any modification of any 10-round magazines owned before Jan. 15, when Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act. In fact, the only 10-round magazines that have to be modified are those purchased from Jan. 15 to April 15, when sales in the state are banned.

And the law lets gun owners keep previously owned larger magazines – so long as they are modified down to a seven-round capacity.

While New York’s law limits new purchases of 10-round magazines, the law grandfathers in previously owned ones – with the caveat that shooter only put seven rounds in the clip.

A closer look at criticisms of New York's new gun law | syracuse.com

Again, the magazines are subject to restriction, not the firearms.

That this and similar laws are idiocy is clear, but attempting to get these laws repealed or invalidated with lies and deceit, as is typical of most on the right, is not the way to achieve the desired goal.

You can pretend this post doesn't exist because it proves you wrong, but that doesn't alter reality:

Your childish unwillingness to accept reality is your own damn problem, boy.

From the NYPD website:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/ny_safe_act_letter_re_lcafd_2013_05_v9.pdf

"...must be immediately surrendered..."

 

[Plasmaball]

Me sitting in a jail cell does not mean I lost my rights, even if I actually committed a felony.

I do have a question for you, what if I like being in jail cells? What if that is how I pursue happiness, and I actually go out and commit felonies just so I can get into one. Since I am, quite obviously, pursuing my happiness, how does throwing me in a jail cell prevent me from pursuing happiness?

are you fucking stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this fucking stupid

By going to jail you only lose your right to a firearm if you fall under the list of prohibited persons. If it's a felony you're on the list, if its a majority of misdemeanours, that alone does not preclude you from owning a firearm

-Geaux

Which still proves my point. Rights are not absolute.

 

[Geaux4it]

are you fucking stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this fucking stupid

By going to jail you only lose your right to a firearm if you fall under the list of prohibited persons. If it's a felony you're on the list, if its a majority of misdemeanours, that alone does not preclude you from owning a firearm

-Geaux

Which still proves my point. Rights are not absolute.

Partly, but my response was not to that statement. It was to your blanket statement that being in jail leads one ultimately to being prohibited from purchasing firearms. Thats like saying when I'm flying on an airplane that prohibits me from purchasing a firearm

-Geaux

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scalia also stated the state has the right to force you to lock up your gun in a case..

No he didn't. What he actually said is that the state can make a law that requires it, and then punish you if you break it, and they catch you.

ok so you agree with me, thank you for proving me right...again.

I didn't agree with you, but you are welcome.

 

[FA_Q2]

Turns out they lied.

Sherrie Questioning All: The gun grabbers always say "Registration does not lead to Confiscation." Hmm... Seems New York is proving that WRONG - Confiscating weapons, registered in state. Letter proving it

Yet another rightist, ignorant or a liar.

Yet you are unable to enlighten us all as to where the lie or the ignorance is. Not really surprising.

Willfully ignorant, you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So when you're sitting in a jail cell because you committed a felony that you thought was protected by your right to bear arms,

and thus you have lost your 'unalienable' right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

who won that argument?

Me sitting in a jail cell does not mean I lost my rights, even if I actually committed a felony.

I do have a question for you, what if I like being in jail cells? What if that is how I pursue happiness, and I actually go out and commit felonies just so I can get into one. Since I am, quite obviously, pursuing my happiness, how does throwing me in a jail cell prevent me from pursuing happiness?

are you fucking stupid? you go to jail you loose the right to vote. Thus yes you loose your rights. You loose your right to own a firearm as well.

Nevermind you are this fucking stupid

Wrong twice in a single sentence.

The right to vote is not unalienable, it is a privilege granted by the government. Not to mention that it is perfectly legal to be in jail and vote everywhere in the country unless you have actually been convicted of a felony. Some places don't even restrict you from voting after you get convicted.

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrights/votingwhileincarc_20051123.pdf

What was that about me being stupid again? Were you looking in a mirror when you said it?

 

[freedombecki]

Obama's Gun Record Basically Consists Of Expanding Gun Owners' Rights - Business Insider

Major Garrett: Obama has expanded, not reduced gun rights - CBS News

So what is it with right wingers? Tardation or inbreeding that makes them hate Obama for no reason? The GOP being 90% white can't have anything to do with it. They claim they aren't "racist".

One thing is, when one farts they all shit. Not one of those retards has had a gun grabbed....ever. But, this is okay, let them campaign on it, normal people will be thinking WTF!

Reading the Obamacare law is not your forte? You have no idea how punitive to gun owners it's going to be..

 

[thereisnospoon]

that is why

registration always = confiscation

I support a testing and licensing procedure similar to obtaining a driver's license.
I see no harm in requiring gun owners to take some kind of safety course then becoming licensed upon passing said course.
After all, in order to get a permit( In NC) one must submit to a background check by local or county law enforcement. For concealed carry, one must take a safety and knowledge course, show proficiency and knowledge of the firearm one will carry before the permit is issued.

Testing is a solution in search of a problem. While common sense dictates one should know how to safely handle a firearm, there is no evidence this requirement would have any effect on crime

-Geaux

Common sense would tell us we all would know after receiving training, how to safely operate an automobile.
The credential would indicate to law enforcement that "yes i have a firearm. And I am trained in the safe usage of said firearm. So leave me alone!".
In fact the SCOTUS has upheld the Second Amendment in a case vs Wash DC in that the court ruled the Wash DC handgun ban was Unconstitutional. The Court ruled the ban was a violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
Later, Chicago's ban was also overturned when a resident who used his gun in protecting his person and home from an intruder, was arrested and charged. The man subsequently sued the City. The case made it to the SCOTUS.

 

[eagle1462010]

Once again the far left does not care about the Constitution. It is all about them getting their way and becoming the ruling class and subjecting everyone via making laws to control every aspect of your life.

Really? And who fought and won the battle to establish that a woman's right to an abortion was a constitutional right?

And who defends that right against those who would try to get their way by abolishing that right?

Would that be, generally, the left or the right?

Something about the right to life or something li e that..................

Those babies have lost that right or something li e that..............

As the Supremes said, let them die..........................

Righteous chit there............