Obama's plan for gun control...

[Nosmo King]

Every four years the same traditions occur. Leap year, the Summer Olympics, hard fought presidential campaigns and Conservative fear mongers screaming about the Democrats wanting to take away your guns. You can set you clocks to it, it haoppens with such regularity.

I find it comforting that this argument persists. It proves beyond all doubt that Conservatives are the most unoriginal thinkers in American life.

Its already been demonstrated that The Obama is a threat to the right to arms, your objections not withstanding.

And those claiming this also said the same about Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy....

tiresome

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every four years the same traditions occur. Leap year, the Summer Olympics, hard fought presidential campaigns and Conservative fear mongers screaming about the Democrats wanting to take away your guns. You can set you clocks to it, it haoppens with such regularity.

I find it comforting that this argument persists. It proves beyond all doubt that Conservatives are the most unoriginal thinkers in American life.

Its already been demonstrated that The Obama is a threat to the right to arms, your objections not withstanding.

And those claiming this also said the same about Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy....

You fail to meaningfully address my response.
I fail to be surprised.

 

[Liberty]

This was the comment that was made

Fast and the furious is an example of obama wanting to take guns away. So sit down and shut the **** up.

Unquestionably, if He could, The Obama would ban half of my guns and require me to license/register the rest.
This fact illustrates that The Obama is a clear threat to the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people.

so you dont think guns should require a license or registration?

if you can cite where in the constitution that it says they must require a license, etc. please cite it. if not, stop making shit up.

 

[Syphon]

Unquestionably, if He could, The Obama would ban half of my guns and require me to license/register the rest.
This fact illustrates that The Obama is a clear threat to the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people.

so you dont think guns should require a license or registration?

Of course I don't - both infringe the right to arms, a right that shall not be infringed.

Now, if you believe you can show that the state has a compelling interest in this regard, and that licensing/registration is the least restrictive means to that end, please have a go at it.

so you are ok with criminals being able to get guns because they dont have to be registered? wow, you gun nuts are idiots.

how is having a license or registering a gun taking away your right to own a gun?

whats next, your gonna say that they shouldnt have to do background checks?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Every four years the same traditions occur. Leap year, the Summer Olympics, hard fought presidential campaigns and Conservative fear mongers screaming about the Democrats wanting to take away your guns. You can set you clocks to it, it haoppens with such regularity.

I find it comforting that this argument persists. It proves beyond all doubt that Conservatives are the most unoriginal thinkers in American life.

Its already been demonstrated that The Obama is a threat to the right to arms, your objections not withstanding.

And those claiming this also said the same about Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy....

tiresome

Clinton did make it illegal to own certain firearms which was a violation of the second amendment.
Kennedy was pro gun for a liberal.

John F. Kennedy: “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.” John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann

John F. Kennedy: “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

The Sight's Gun Quotes Page

 

[M14 Shooter]

so you dont think guns should require a license or registration?

Of course I don't - both infringe the right to arms, a right that shall not be infringed.

Now, if you believe you can show that the state has a compelling interest in this regard, and that licensing/registration is the least restrictive means to that end, please have a go at it.

so you are ok with criminals being able to get guns because they dont have to be registered?

Non sequitur - that is, your response does not logically follow from what I said.
Never mind the fact that a criminal cannot be legally forced to register a gun he may have.

How is having a license or registering a gun taking away your right to own a gun?

The key term is not "take away", but "infringe".
Licensing and registratiin are preconditions placed on the exercise of the right not inherent to same. They are, by definition, infringements of the right.
The right shall not be infringed.

whats next, your gonna say that they shouldnt have to do background checks?

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where you are prohibited from exercising your right until the state determines that you are not, in this case, breaking the law.
Prior restraint is always an infringement.

Now, as I noted - if you believe you can show that these things are pursuant to a compelling state interest, and that licensing/registration/background checks are the least restrictive means to those ends, please have a go at it.

wow, you gun nuts are idiots.

And you are clearly incapable of having an intelligent discussion on the issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its already been demonstrated that The Obama is a threat to the right to arms, your objections not withstanding.

And those claiming this also said the same about Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy....

tiresome

Clinton did make it illegal to own certain firearms which was a violation of the second amendment.
Kennedy was pro gun for a liberal.

John F. Kennedy: “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.” John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann

John F. Kennedy: “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

The Sight's Gun Quotes Page

None of that changes the fact that The Obama, as demonstrated by His own words and publicly-disclosed positons, is a credible threat to the right to arms.

NK has no interesnt in discussing this, he merely wants to belittle those that he disagrees with but cannot effectively argue against.

Don't follow the red herring.

 

[Syphon]

Of course I don't - both infringe the right to arms, a right that shall not be infringed.

Now, if you believe you can show that the state has a compelling interest in this regard, and that licensing/registration is the least restrictive means to that end, please have a go at it.

so you are ok with criminals being able to get guns because they dont have to be registered?

Non sequitur - that is, your response does not logically follow from what I said.

non sequiter? you obviously cant have an intelligent argument.

The key term is not "take away", but "infringe".
Licensing and registratiin are preconditions placed on the exercise of the right not inherent to same. They are, by definition, infringements of the right.
the right shall not be infringed.

the right of a criminal to own a gun has already been taken away. now how does one prevent that from happening? through background check and gun registration. how is asking someone to submit to a background check or register their gun taking away their right to own a gun? it limits the ability of criminals to own guns through a check and balance system, but they can not legally refuse to sell you a gun once you have passed that check. are you gonna consider dynamite an "arm" next, and say that we shouldnt control the distribution of that either? is that covered under the 2nd amendment? what about RPG's or AT4s? should they allow common citizens to own those next? what about automatic weapons?

whats next, your gonna say that they shouldnt have to do background checks?

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where you are prohibited from exercising your right until the state determines that you are not, in this case, breaking the law.
Prior restraint is always an infringement.
so you are in essence against background checks, thanks for confirming that. tell that to the gang banger who kills someone on the news next.

Now, as I noted - if you believe you can show that the state has a compelling interest in these regards, and that licensing/registration/background checks are the least restrictive means to those ends, please have a go at it.

hmmmm easy argument. man goes to jail for felony breaking and entering. his right to own a gun is taken away by the courts. but with no background check or gun registration necessary, he gets out of jail, goes to the nearest gun store, gets a gun and shoot both the judge and DA who puts him away. although he is not legally allowed to have a gun, his access is not limited due to safety measure. and there goes your logic that licensing/registration/background checks are a good logical way to keep guns away from criminals.

wow, you gun nuts are idiots.

And you are clearly incapable of having an intelligent discussion on the issue.

you are clearly think gun control and gun elimination are the same thing. an intelligent person knows the difference.

 

[Syphon]

And those claiming this also said the same about Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy....

tiresome

Clinton did make it illegal to own certain firearms which was a violation of the second amendment.
Kennedy was pro gun for a liberal.

John F. Kennedy: “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.” John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann

John F. Kennedy: “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

The Sight's Gun Quotes Page

None of that changes the fact that The Obama, as demonstrated by His own words and publicly-disclosed positons, is a credible threat to the right to arms.

NK has no interesnt in discussing this, he merely wants to belittle those that he disagrees with but cannot effectively argue against.

Don't follow the red herring.

when has Obama said, i will take away your right to have a gun?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Clinton did make it illegal to own certain firearms which was a violation of the second amendment.
Kennedy was pro gun for a liberal.

John F. Kennedy: “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.” John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann

John F. Kennedy: “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

The Sight's Gun Quotes Page

None of that changes the fact that The Obama, as demonstrated by His own words and publicly-disclosed positons, is a credible threat to the right to arms.

NK has no interesnt in discussing this, he merely wants to belittle those that he disagrees with but cannot effectively argue against.

Don't follow the red herring.

when has Obama said, i will take away your right to have a gun?

you obviously cant have an intelligent argument with a question like that. After the last democrat gun ban they learned not to say something that politically stupid. Why would obama support fast and furious? why would he have and attorney general who supported it if it wasn't his intent to use fast and furious to push more gun control?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so you are ok with criminals being able to get guns because they dont have to be registered?

Non sequitur - that is, your response does not logically follow from what I said.

non sequiter? you obviously cant have an intelligent argument.

The key term is not "take away", but "infringe".
Licensing and registratiin are preconditions placed on the exercise of the right not inherent to same. They are, by definition, infringements of the right.
the right shall not be infringed.

the right of a criminal to own a gun has already been taken away. now how does one prevent that from happening? through background check and gun registration. how is asking someone to submit to a background check or register their gun taking away their right to own a gun? it limits the ability of criminals to own guns through a check and balance system, but they can not legally refuse to sell you a gun once you have passed that check. are you gonna consider dynamite an "arm" next, and say that we shouldnt control the distribution of that either? is that covered under the 2nd amendment? what about RPG's or AT4s? should they allow common citizens to own those next? what about automatic weapons?


Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where you are prohibited from exercising your right until the state determines that you are not, in this case, breaking the law.
Prior restraint is always an infringement.
so you are in essence against background checks, thanks for confirming that. tell that to the gang banger who kills someone on the news next.

Now, as I noted - if you believe you can show that the state has a compelling interest in these regards, and that licensing/registration/background checks are the least restrictive means to those ends, please have a go at it.

hmmmm easy argument. man goes to jail for felony breaking and entering. his right to own a gun is taken away by the courts. but with no background check or gun registration necessary, he gets out of jail, goes to the nearest gun store, gets a gun and shoot both the judge and DA who puts him away. although he is not legally allowed to have a gun, his access is not limited due to safety measure. and there goes your logic that licensing/registration/background checks are a good logical way to keep guns away from criminals.

wow, you gun nuts are idiots.

And you are clearly incapable of having an intelligent discussion on the issue.

you are clearly think gun control and gun elimination are the same thing. an intelligent person knows the difference.

Both are infringements of my rights to keep and bear arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Non sequitur - that is, your response does not logically follow from what I said.

non sequiter? you obviously cant have an intelligent argument.

Yes. Non sequitur. Your response does not logically follow from what I said, and thus, is not a valid response to same.
Disagree? Show how your response necessarily follows from my statement - show the logical progression.

The key term is not "take away", but "infringe".
Licensing and registratiin are preconditions placed on the exercise of the right not inherent to same. They are, by definition, infringements of the right.
The right shall not be infringed.

the right of a criminal to own a gun has already been taken away. now how does one prevent that from happening?

You have failed to address my statement. Please try again.

how is asking someone to submit to a background check or register their gun taking away their right to own a gun?

I have already addressed this. You have yet to respond to what I said.

Now, as I noted - if you believe you can show that the state has a compelling interest in these regards, and that licensing/registration/background checks are the least restrictive means to those ends, please have a go at it.

hmmmm easy argument. man goes to jail for felony breaking and entering. his right to own a gun is taken away by the courts. but with no background check or gun registration necessary, he gets out of jail, goes to the nearest gun store, gets a gun and shoot both the judge and DA who puts him away. although he is not legally allowed to have a gun, his access is not limited due to safety measure.

So.. where is the compelling state interest, and how is the background check/licensing and registration the least restrictive means to that end?

Hint: In order to answer my question, you need to know what actually qualifies as a "compelling state interest".

And you are clearly incapable of having an intelligent discussion on the issue.

You are clearly think gun control and gun elimination are the same thing. an intelligent person knows the difference.

Apparently you did not notice that I made this very distinction earlier, in response to your statement regading "taking away your rught to own a gun".

Also, please learn how to properly use the quote function.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clinton did make it illegal to own certain firearms which was a violation of the second amendment.
Kennedy was pro gun for a liberal.

John F. Kennedy: “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.” John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann

John F. Kennedy: “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

The Sight's Gun Quotes Page

None of that changes the fact that The Obama, as demonstrated by His own words and publicly-disclosed positons, is a credible threat to the right to arms.

NK has no interesnt in discussing this, he merely wants to belittle those that he disagrees with but cannot effectively argue against.

Don't follow the red herring.

when has Obama said, i will take away your right to have a gun?

I posted The Obama's positions on guns earlier in this topic.
In His own words, He wishes to ban guns and require gun registration and licensing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Non sequitur - that is, your response does not logically follow from what I said.

non sequiter? you obviously cant have an intelligent argument.

The key term is not "take away", but "infringe".
Licensing and registratiin are preconditions placed on the exercise of the right not inherent to same. They are, by definition, infringements of the right.
the right shall not be infringed.

the right of a criminal to own a gun has already been taken away. now how does one prevent that from happening? through background check and gun registration. how is asking someone to submit to a background check or register their gun taking away their right to own a gun? it limits the ability of criminals to own guns through a check and balance system, but they can not legally refuse to sell you a gun once you have passed that check. are you gonna consider dynamite an "arm" next, and say that we shouldnt control the distribution of that either? is that covered under the 2nd amendment? what about RPG's or AT4s? should they allow common citizens to own those next? what about automatic weapons?


Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where you are prohibited from exercising your right until the state determines that you are not, in this case, breaking the law.
Prior restraint is always an infringement.
so you are in essence against background checks, thanks for confirming that. tell that to the gang banger who kills someone on the news next.

Now, as I noted - if you believe you can show that the state has a compelling interest in these regards, and that licensing/registration/background checks are the least restrictive means to those ends, please have a go at it.

hmmmm easy argument. man goes to jail for felony breaking and entering. his right to own a gun is taken away by the courts. but with no background check or gun registration necessary, he gets out of jail, goes to the nearest gun store, gets a gun and shoot both the judge and DA who puts him away. although he is not legally allowed to have a gun, his access is not limited due to safety measure. and there goes your logic that licensing/registration/background checks are a good logical way to keep guns away from criminals.


And you are clearly incapable of having an intelligent discussion on the issue.

you are clearly think gun control and gun elimination are the same thing. an intelligent person knows the difference.

Both are infringements of my rights to keep and bear arms.

Correct. He apparently does not inderstand that "infringe" is much borader than simply "take away".

 

[Syphon]

Non sequitur - that is, your response does not logically follow from what I said.

non sequiter? you obviously cant have an intelligent argument.

Yes. Non sequitur. Your response does not logically follow from what I said, and thus, is not a valid response to same.
Disagree? Show how your response necessarily follows from my statement - show the logical progression.


You have failed to address my statement. Please try again.


I have already addressed this. You have yet to respond to what I said.


So.. where is the compelling state interest, and how is the background check/licensing and registration the least restrictive means to that end?

Hint: In order to answer my question, you need to know what actually qualifies as a "compelling state interest".

And you are clearly incapable of having an intelligent discussion on the issue.

You are clearly think gun control and gun elimination are the same thing. an intelligent person knows the difference.

Apparently you did not notice that I made this very distinction earlier, in response to your statement regading "taking away your rught to own a gun".

Also, please learn how to properly use the quote function.

so you believe that background checks and gun registrations are infringements when is fact they are not. what are you gonna claim next, that yelling fire in a crowded room is protected by free speech laws? background checks at work are an infringement on your privacy? are you gonna say bans on smoking are an infringement ones rights as well?

lets even go a step farther. i wanna keep and M1A1 abrams , and SAM missiles and a 50 cal machine gun on my property in the front yard. i also want to have RPG's and AT4's. all for personal protection. never mind that none of these is needed to do so anything other than fight a war. what about a nuclear weapon? thats considered an arm. the limitations on those are in infringement on my right to bear arms.

you wing nuts are retarded.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so you believe that background checks and gun registrations are infringements

Yes, I do, and I have presented you with arguments as to -why- they are infringements.
You have yet to effectively address my arguments in those regards.

When you think you can actually do this, get back to me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

non sequiter? you obviously cant have an intelligent argument.

Yes. Non sequitur. Your response does not logically follow from what I said, and thus, is not a valid response to same.
Disagree? Show how your response necessarily follows from my statement - show the logical progression.


You have failed to address my statement. Please try again.


I have already addressed this. You have yet to respond to what I said.


So.. where is the compelling state interest, and how is the background check/licensing and registration the least restrictive means to that end?

Hint: In order to answer my question, you need to know what actually qualifies as a "compelling state interest".

You are clearly think gun control and gun elimination are the same thing. an intelligent person knows the difference.

Apparently you did not notice that I made this very distinction earlier, in response to your statement regading "taking away your rught to own a gun".

Also, please learn how to properly use the quote function.

so you believe that background checks and gun registrations are infringements when is fact they are not. what are you gonna claim next, that yelling fire in a crowded room is protected by free speech laws? background checks at work are an infringement on your privacy? are you gonna say bans on smoking are an infringement ones rights as well?

Yes in fact they are infringements.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so you believe that background checks and gun registrations are infringements

Yes, I do, and I have presented you with arguments as to -why- they are infringements.
You have yet to effectively address my arguments in those regards.

When you think you can actually do this, get back to me.

He can't do that because his argument for gun control starts to crumble around him.

 

[Syphon]

you are clearly think gun control and gun elimination are the same thing. an intelligent person knows the difference.

Both are infringements of my rights to keep and bear arms.

Correct. He apparently does not inderstand that "infringe" is much borader than simply "take away".

Infringe - An encroachment
infringement - definition of infringement by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

apparently your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.

infringement and taking away are not the same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so you believe that background checks and gun registrations are infringements

Yes, I do, and I have presented you with arguments as to -why- they are infringements.
You have yet to effectively address my arguments in those regards.

When you think you can actually do this, get back to me.

He can't do that because his argument for gun control starts to crumble around him.

He can't do that because he has neither the most basic understanding of the issue at hand nor the slightest idea of how to string together a sound argument.

And -he- calls -me- an idiot.