Obama and Guns

[jillian]

Because the laws/rights are irrelevant if the Court won't enforce them....

(kind of like warrantless wiretaps)

 

[ReillyT]

Uh huh, that's what I thought too....but tell that to those that lost their homes due to the Kelo v. New London case...

They went to court over it. That is due process.

 

[KungFusion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
I don't know where you live that they take away unregistered pets from their owners...

That would be everywhere pet registration is required.

Doesn't happen - if an unregistered pet is FOUND and the owner cannot be located it will be taken, but what else are they going to do with it? However, if you are walking an unregistered dog, the gov't is not going to come and take it. So no, that wouldn't be anywhere that pet registration is required.

Actually, if your animal control officer finds you walking your unregistered pet, he's going to confiscate it.

Your denial of reality is remakable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
...and where the constitution is the only barrier between your television and those who would steal it, but i'd suggest moving.

The Constitution is the legal barrier between your property, and the government stealing it.

If you live where no such protection exists, I'd suggest moving to you.

Actually, property laws are the barrier between your property and the gov't stealing it

Actually, property laws are the barrier between your property and the other people, apart from the government, stealing it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
And, dude, "pay attention" and "that's not relevant" AREN'T arguments.

Uh, dude, if you had paid attention, you'd have noted that counter arguments to your argument followed "pay attention."

Actually, what followed the "pay attention" was another quote from my previous post . . .

Which was in turn followed be my response to that quote. Your denial of reality is nothing if not persistent. Feel free to congradulate yourself with continued denials.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
And pointing out that your argument is not relevent to what you're attempting refute, actually is argument.

Not if you don't demonstrate how it isn't relevant. Sorry.

But I did. Your persistent denial of reality is admirable. Iwill take this as your second "pro-tip": Just deny that your opponent demonstrated how your assertion irrelevent, and then proceed as if your assertion remains relevent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
I will now consider it a "pro-tip" to simply declare any post I want to avoid responding to as "not an argument" and then proceed as if it's not a valid response.

You can if you want, but it won't be necessarry unless youre arguing against someone with the same tendencies as yourself.

Your suggestion, that I have a tendency toward not presenting argument, is completely unsubstantiated--it is consistent, however, with your remarkably robust denial of reality


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
This shit has petrified.

The shit inside your skull? Agreed!

Witty.

I suppose I should be gratified that you approve.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Try to work on your grasp of analogies.

I grasp them well enough--I appears to be better than you would wish.

If that's what you need to tell yourself.

Not at all; it's what needs explaining to you, given the robust persistence of your remarkable denial of reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
In the meantime, don't shoot anyone...

Hasn't happened despite none of my guns being registered. Thanks anyway.

Glad to hear it. Wouldn't want the police confiscating as evidence any of your shiny, phallic toy collection.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I suspect you're engaging in some kind of projection derived from self-abusive visits to your own private Idaho.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
...and keep your eyes peeled for the black helicopters . . .

Why? Are you in the market for one?

That's how you know when theyre coming for you, silly.

You say black helicopters are coming for me? I had no idea. I think I'd like a black helicopter--if more than one shows up, I'll let you have one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
and remember: Soylent Green is people.

I will. Any you remember to keep your hand off my guns, you filthy ape

I'm not who you should worry about. From what i can tell, you're your own worst enemy.

It's well that you're able to recognize the limits of your capacities--say hello to the potato heads for me. Thanks.


100 asshole points, tough boy - congratulations. you really showed me, i guess.

 

[KungFusion]

Um... why did you lie about that being your last post?

Just so i could hear you ask, sweetypie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just so i could hear you ask, sweetypie.

Yeah, right.

 

[Dr Grump]

So some think background checks are bad?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So some think background checks are bad?

Background checks, like licensing and registration, are preconditions to the exercise of the right to arms that are not inherent to said right.
Thus, they are infringements.

 

[Dr Grump]

Background checks, like licensing and registration, are preconditions to the exercise of the right to arms that are not inherent to said right.
Thus, they are infringements.

That aside, do you think it a good idea that a person with a history of violent mental illness be allowed to get a gun?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That aside, do you think it a good idea that a person with a history of violent mental illness be allowed to get a gun?

Its illegal for them to have guns, presuming that their right to same has been taken away under the law. I have no probelm with that, as not everyone has the right to own a gun.

 

[Dr Grump]

Its illegal for them to have guns, presuming that their right to same has been taken away under the law. I have no probelm with that, as not everyone has the right to own a gun.

But the only way to find out if they have or do not have, that right, is for a background check, no?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But the only way to find out if they have or do not have, that right, is for a background check, no?

You can't pre-empt crime, and you can't infringe the rights of others when you try to do so.

 

[Dr Grump]

You can't pre-empt crime, and you can't infringe the rights of others when you try to do so.

Of course you can pre-empt crime, just like you can invade a country pre-empting it from causing you harm, no?

So, to answer my question, what would you be happy if your wife or child was killed by somebody with a severe mental illness who had access to a firearm, who else would not have had said access if a simple background check had been done.

That aside, if you have no criminal history, what is your objection to a background check? The check is done, you are clear, go get your peashooter.
Now before you start rambling about your "why should I have to" rant, who cares? The greater good is more important than the selfishness of the one. Also, you are asking for a right that was set at a time when things were a lot different. Also, you have to believe in the "inherent god-given right" of the second, which some believe, as opposed to it being an amendment that can be changed in Congress.

 

[Gunny]

You can't pre-empt crime, and you can't infringe the rights of others when you try to do so.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Common sense has to apply. There are weapons civilians just don't need and "I want one" doesn't cut it with me compared to the potential danger than weapon presents.

Background checks are not an infringement on any law-abiding citizen's rights. It is a method of establishing who is a law-abiding citizen and denies criminals with records and/or kooks with records the option of obtaining firearms legally.

If you think about it logically, if criminals/kooks can obtain firearms legally, the end result of that will be NO ONE will be allowed to obtain them legally. One of the base arguments of gun owners now is that most criminals obtain their firearms illegally.

You want to remove that argument from the equation? Not me.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I have to disagree with you on this one. Common sense has to apply. There are weapons civilians just don't need and "I want one" doesn't cut it with me compared to the potential danger than weapon presents.

Background checks are not an infringement on any law-abiding citizen's rights. It is a method of establishing who is a law-abiding citizen and denies criminals with records and/or kooks with records the option of obtaining firearms legally.

If you think about it logically, if criminals/kooks can obtain firearms legally, the end result of that will be NO ONE will be allowed to obtain them legally. One of the base arguments of gun owners now is that most criminals obtain their firearms illegally.

You want to remove that argument from the equation? Not me.

But adding more restrictions to law abiding citizens to make it harder for them to obtain weapons only aids the criminals who do not follow those rules in the first place.
Assault weapons may be illegal, but I can assure you all of the crooks have them. If you hang around Phoenix on the 4th of July, Cinco De Mayo or New Year's Day, you'll find out just how well armed the crooks are.

 

[Gunny]

But adding more restrictions to law abiding citizens to make it harder for them to obtain weapons only aids the criminals who do not follow those rules in the first place.
Assault weapons may be illegal, but I can assure you all of the crooks have them. If you hang around Phoenix on the 4th of July, Cinco De Mayo or New Year's Day, you'll find out just how well armed the crooks are.

I said nothing about adding "more" restrictions. I just don't see background checks as infringing on my rights. Don't know how y'all do it, but the gunshop owners here call that day and you usually get your firearm that day. The next at most.

If the system had worked properly at all levels, that bonehead at VT would never have been able to obtain a firearm. Seems everyone knew he was nuts but the feds.

Dude, I live in San Antonio, TX. I doubt y'all got anything there we don't have here, to include Cinco de Mayo.

I have this simple philosophy: where those crooks like to hang out isn't anywhere I need to be. They hang out downtown and close to it and I have no desire to go down there for anything. I go down there enough for work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course you can pre-empt crime

Not without infriging on the rights of the people.

So, to answer my question...

I answered your question. You're asking a new one, a question about how I would feel. How I feel doesnt make any difference to my political positions, as my political positions aren't based on feelings.

That aside, if you have no criminal history, what is your objection to a background check?

The same reason you have an objection to the government listening in on your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- it violates your rights.
If the greater good is more important than the selfishness of the one, you shouldnt have an objection to those taps - right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks are not an infringement on any law-abiding citizen's rights.

Sure they are -- they're a form of asking permission to exercise your right.

If you think about it logically, if criminals/kooks can obtain firearms legally...

They -can't- obtain them legally.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not without infriging on the rights of the people.

Exactly.So what do you think of the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?

I answered your question. You're asking a new one, a question about how I would feel. How I feel doesnt make any difference to my political positions, as my political positions aren't based on feelings.

Of course it makes a difference, unless you are an unfeeling autobot. So, getting background checks on nutjobs should be outlawed. If your wife is killed by a said nutjob with an AK47, it doesn't matter as long as your political position is intact. Fine.

The same reason you have an objection to the government listening in on your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- it violates your rights.If the greater good is more important than the selfishness of the one, you shouldnt have an objection to those taps - right?

You know you are sooo right. There is a history of violent phone tappers beating people to death with the tap wires......

Any other apple and oranges you want to compare while you're at it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly.So what do you think of the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?

Ah - a red herring.
Any other apple and oranges you want to compare while you're at it?

Of course it makes a difference, unless you are an unfeeling autobot.

No. It doesn't. And as such, my orignal answer to your original question stands:
Its illegal for them to have guns, presuming that their right to same has been taken away under the law. I have no probelm with that, as not everyone has the right to own a gun.

You know you are sooo right. There is a history of violent phone tappers beating people to death with the tap wires......

So, you DO have an objection to your 4th amendemnt rights being violated, even though you have nothing to hide.
And you expect me to have no oibjection to my 2nd amendment rights being violated, even though i have nothing to hide, because...?

 

[Dr Grump]

Ah - a red herring.
Any other apple and oranges you want to compare while you're at it?

Pre-emptive is pre-emptive. Either you believe in the concept or you don't - under any circumstance. The fact you are now bobbing and weaving speaks volumes of your true opinion...

No. It doesn't. And as such, my orignal answer to your original question stands:
Its illegal for them to have guns, presuming that their right to same has been taken away under the law. I have no probelm with that, as not everyone has the right to own a gun

So let's get down to practicalities. I'm a low life violent sucker who wants to own a gun. How does somebody selling a gun know who I am? Mindreading?
BTW, it is not lost on me that you cut my example. Cuts too close to the truth for you [Dr Grump waits for the standard "your example ain't worth shit" reply, even though it is a reasonable - and in some cases, probable - outcome]

So, you DO have an objection to your 4th amendemnt rights being violated, even though you have nothing to hide.
And you expect me to have no oibjection to my 2nd amendment rights being violated, even though i have nothing to hide, because...?

I have no 4th amendment right. I am a NZ citizen. What I do know is that if I was a US citizen and my 4th amendment right was abused I would have a remedy. I'd also have a remedy if some nutjob who shouldn't have a gun got one legally, and then shot my family to death. But then agian, by the time that happened, maybe my remedy wouldn't mean that much to me..