Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

[M14 Shooter]

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

No. I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

Does not make your commentary any less meaningless.

Yet here you are asking for more of it.

I have not asked more of your commentary regarding your failed point about changes in the court; I am pointing out that it is meaningless.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what you are arguing here

I'm arguing that your "plan" will -not- prevent mass shootings, as you claim, because people will still have access to guns.
That being the case, there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to consider your idea in any way.[/QUOTE]

We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.

The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.

OF all the gun junkies that are roaming the streets right now, anyone of them can get a gun no questions asked from a well constructed loophole or from their parent's arsenal. Or one they can buy themselves if they can beat the background tests.

You close the loophole by having the sellers there have to issue the insurance policy with the sale. So that is closed off to them.
Their parents will buy fewer
You make the price higher and fewer of these gun junkies will be buying guns or they will buy fewer

At the very least, gun purchases by these junkies will be discouraged.
Monetarily, they will be limited.
And thus, you give kids hiding in their classrooms a fighting chance since he was "only" able to load 1 weapon in advance and not 3.

In the very least, the insurance policy will compensate victims of these devices.

 

[candycorn]

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

No. I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

Does not make your commentary any less meaningless.

Yet here you are asking for more of it.

I have not asked more of your commentary regarding your failed point about changes in the court; I am pointing out that it is meaningless.

Yet here you are asking for more.

I have no illusions about the ease of moving the gun-crazies further into the margins of society.

 

[candycorn]

It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

An infringement is an infringement. You cannot argue one and not argue the other. Sorry.

My interpretation? I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

Not sure what you are arguing here. Not that it matters. Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.

Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.

So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.

Ah, You're delusional. Oh...

The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.

Irrelevant.
People will still have guns.
You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

 

[candycorn]

We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.

Ah, You're delusional. Oh...

The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.

Irrelevant.
People will still have guns.
You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.

If you can quote me where I said it will "prevent" it, I'll apologize. If not, oh well, another victory.

 

[candycorn]

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment. It is there for a reason. The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.

Ah, You're delusional. Oh...

The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.

Irrelevant.
People will still have guns.
You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.

If you can quote me where I said it will "prevent" it, I'll apologize. If not, oh well, another victory.

Post 326

M14 Shooter said:
How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?
The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.

Except I just did.

You may now apologize.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment. It is there for a reason. The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.

So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
I accept your concession.

 

[Slyhunter]

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.

 

[candycorn]

We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.

Ah, You're delusional. Oh...

The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.

Irrelevant.
People will still have guns.
You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.

If you can quote me where I said it will "prevent" it, I'll apologize. If not, oh well, another victory.

Post 326

M14 Shooter said:
How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws?
The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.

Except I just did.

You may now apologize.

Not enough time to go back and look at it. I'll take your word for it.

I apologize. Outside of total confiscation, nothing will get rid of guns. My plan will limit the pool of guns available. And that will discourage some of the psychopaths from commiting these mass shootings. While the NRA continues to lie about availability being the only true cause for gun violence and blames "mental illness" for the near monthly bloodbath it has created, the supposedly "mentally ill" are beholden to the same market forces as the rest of us. Price guns out of their means of affording them, and you won't have as many "mentally ill" folks buying guns. Too bad.

 

[candycorn]

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.

Point to the part of the constitution that says that.

 

[Papageorgio]

We've been over the other two points ad nauseum and I have won both of them repeatedly. No need for me to spike the football.

Ah, You're delusional. Oh...

The plan will reduce mass shootings because it will, admittedly slowly, dry up the pool from which weapons are acquired using good old (and proven) market forces.

Irrelevant.
People will still have guns.
You claimed that your plan will prevent mass shootings; as people will still have guns, it will prevent no such thing.

I see where this issue is avoided.

 

[candycorn]

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment. It is there for a reason. The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.

So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
I accept your concession.

Militia...it's in there for a reason. For the 8th time. I accept the fact that you cannot read.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only if, like you, they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
Roe v Wade will be overturned before Heller.

Not going to happen. Likely neither one will.

And so, you admit your commentary regarding the changing of justices is, well, meaningless.

No. I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

I'm a political realist. Change comes slowly if at all.

For instance, the change in the number of states that allow concealed carry.
You're on the wrong side of history.

Now that is hilarious. Thanks for another reason to laugh at the gun crazies.

Now that is hilarious

Why is that hilarious?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

An infringement is an infringement. You cannot argue one and not argue the other. Sorry.

My interpretation? I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

Not sure what you are arguing here. Not that it matters. Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.

Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.

So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.

Not sure what you mean by that.

A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.

 

[candycorn]

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

An infringement is an infringement. You cannot argue one and not argue the other. Sorry.

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

Not sure what you are arguing here. Not that it matters. Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.

Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.

So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.

Not sure what you mean by that.

A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.

???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your position fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

An infringement is an infringement. You cannot argue one and not argue the other. Sorry.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

Not sure what you are arguing here. Not that it matters. Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.

Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.

So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.

Not sure what you mean by that.

A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.

???

If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.

 

[candycorn]

An infringement is an infringement. You cannot argue one and not argue the other. Sorry.

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

Not sure what you are arguing here. Not that it matters. Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford. Just like the situation is on 10/6/2015.

Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.

So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.

Not sure what you mean by that.

A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.

???

If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.