Second time I must commend the Biden administration today...

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Just checking: you are an NRA dupe, and I am quite sure. "Gun controller", lol. Yeah, I'm also an automobile controller, as I advocate that we not drive on the sidewalk, though I guess to you white-rights that is an infringement on your freedom, the damned govt telling you what to do! And never mind who gets killed, right?

Too bad nobody controlled Adam Lanza.

How should Lanza been controlled, exactly?

 

[woodwork201]

Actually, any right can be stripped with "due process of the law". But, none of these people have been found guilty of a crime.

You don't have much understanding of the Constitution. No right can be stripped, even with due process of the law. Google Supremacy Clause.

Are you suggesting that the government can convict without a trial or jury? Or that, as long as there's a law passed, a person can be charged twice for the same crime?

 

[MadChemist]

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It ends it right there - the period after shall not be infringed. There's no comma or semi-colon, there's no "but" or "except".

So, like I said, you can definitely believe that the government should decide who owns guns and who does not, ignoring that for the first 145 years of our nation the Federal Government understood that it could not regulate gun ownership. Just quit pretending to support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution; you've already proven that you support neither.

Also, since you've agreed with Nancy Pelosi and the Squad that the Government is not bound by the Constitution but, instead, can do whatever you, Nancy, and the Squad want it to do, just don't complain when you get outvoted by the Squad and Nancy and they do far more stuff you wish they hadn't than they do enforcing your authoritarianism.

I think you've got the wrong guy.

He is generally a right wing 2nd amendment person. Do a little research and keep it in context.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an actual common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html

The NRA and pro-gun people have been saying for years that the government should enforce current laws before creating new ones.
Glad the Democrats finally caught on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The slippery slope argument is BS. If we implement sane background checks to weed out psychos, that does not mean we're coming to take your popgun tomorrow.

Its not a slippery slope fallacy when we're already half-way down the hill.
1968: Felons can't have guns
1993: We need background checks to keep felons from buying guns
1998: We need -universal- background checks to prevent criminals from buying guns
20xx: We need universal universal registration to enforce universal background checks
No one wonders why the anti-gun loons want universal registration.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This very typical delusional white-right screed is pure bulldooky. You claim to know what "the Left" is thinking. You do not.
But I know what you're thinking, and why you want those guns... and it ain't about protecting your castle from criminals, is it...

Given the unnecessary and ineffective laws you (collectively) propose and support, you want to make it as hard as you can for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
How am I wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're paranoid, like nearly all RepubliQans today.

When the anti-gun left goes on TV and talks about the guns they will ban, the necessary and ineffective restrictions they want to place on the law abiding, and how we need to repeal of the 2nd Amendment...
.... its not paranoia.

Background checks have too many loopholes

Its is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law -- thus, there are no loopholes.

There are not provisions for stopping people who are obviously unhinged (cf. Adam Lanza

Lanza murdered his mother and stole her gun.
No background check would have stopped him.

.And really why do you need huge magazines, automatic weapons, and such?

The exercise of rights is not subject to the demonstration of a "need".

Don't think we don't know what you're up to. And don't think you won't run into a brick wall.

What are we up to, and what brick wall will we run up against?

Are you anti-gun loons ever going to come up with a cogent political argument? Or will it just be endless cliches, rhetoric, lies and fantasies which is currently all y'all are capable of?

 

[M14 Shooter]

They don't care about the Constitution? What I don't care about is your white-right NRA-twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The fact you disagree with the USSC means nothing.

 

[woodwork201]

I think you've got the wrong guy.

He is generally a right wing 2nd amendment person. Do a little research and keep it in context.

No; he's generally a gun controller with some mild interest in keeping the guns he approves in the hands of those he approves.

Like I said to Missourian, there's no "except" clause at the end of the Second Amendment. Since he agrees that the government can infringe, the only thing that separates him from David Chipman is the negotiation on which guns to ban and from whom.

 

[woodwork201]

Its not a slippery slope fallacy when we're already half-way down the hill.
1968: Felons can't have guns
1993: We need background checks to keep felons from buying guns
1998: We need -universal- background checks to prevent criminals from buying guns
20xx: We need universal universal registration to enforce universal background checks
No one wonders why the anti-gun loons want universal registration.

Some additions for your list:
1934: Many guns are taxed to prevent blacks from owning them
1938: Violent felons cannot have guns
then, 1968: Felony litterers cannot have guns, along with any other non-violent felons.
1992-2000: The Clinton VA sends the names of 83000 vets with PTSD to the FBI to ban them from owning guns.
1996: Misdemeanor domestic violence offenders cannot own guns.
1996: Those whose intimate partners make claims, falsely or otherwise, against them to get a protective order cannot own guns.
2015: The Obama VA sends 270,000 names of vets, some with PTSD, some simply not able to balance their checkbooks so they have assistance with their finances, to the FBI to strip those vets of their right to keep and bear arms.
1993 to current: Congressional Democrats and Republicans, alike, include rules in all budgets forbidding the ATF or FBI from spending one red cent enabling potentially falsely prohibited persons from appealing their prohibited status even though the Brady bill requires a process for appealing.

2021: Lots of faux conservatives on usmessageboard.com and elsewhere support the government's right to choose who gets to own guns and to continually add to the list of groups who are prohibited persons.

 

[Missourian]

The NRA and pro-gun people have been saying for years that the government should enforce current laws before creating new ones.
Glad the Democrats finally caught on.

Exactly...

Georgia ‘gun pipeline’ that ‘flooded’ NYC with illegal firearms shutdown, nine indicted, feds say

A gun pipeline where traffickers flooded New York City with firearms purchased in Georgia has been shut down and nine people are facing federal charges in connection with reselling the guns, some of which appeared in music videos and were used to shoot at police officers, authorities said Wednesday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Missourian]

No; he's generally a gun controller with some mild interest in keeping the guns he approves in the hands of those he approves.

Like I said to Missourian, there's no "except" clause at the end of the Second Amendment. Since he agrees that the government can infringe, the only thing that separates him from David Chipman is the negotiation on which guns to ban and from whom.

Actions have consequences.

You have the right to live free...until you decide to commit a crime. Then that right is curtailed and you get to live in a five by eight cell.

You commit a felony...no gun for you.

Everyone wants to expound upon their rights...but they never seem to remember their responsibilities.

I'm all for restoring the firearm rights of felons...but I take no issue with the current system of removing both the voting and second amendment rights of convicted felons.

 

[woodwork201]

Actions have consequences.

You have the right to live free...until you decide to commit a crime. Then that right is curtailed and you get to live in a five by eight cell.

You commit a felony...no gun for you.

Everyone wants to expound upon their rights...but they never seem to remember their responsibilities.

I'm all for restoring the firearm rights of felons...but I take no issue with the current system of removing both the voting and second amendment rights of convicted felons.

And what about right to a trial by jury? Once convicted for the first crime, can they then be jailed without trial for any future accusations?

Once convicted for a felony, can they or their property be searched forever any time the government chooses without probable cause or warrant?

Can they be forced to incriminate themselves? Perhaps jailed until they confess to whatever crime the State claims they committed?

Can they be whipped and beaten? Tortured with electrical shock or fingers cut off for stealing or any punishment the government wishes without any protection against cruel or unusual punishment?

By the way, more proof of your ignorance and that you're really a gun controller: there's no such thing as 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment grants or creates no right. It is simply, no more, no less, than a restriction on government against infringing on an already existing right. It's a restriction on government. Since you don't believe that the Constitution, or even the 2nd Amendment, places binding restrictions on government, then you wouldn't really understand the concept.

 

[Missourian]

And what about right to a trial by jury? Once convicted for the first crime, can they then be jailed without trial for any future accusations?

Once convicted for a felony, can they or their property be searched forever any time the government chooses without probable cause or warrant?

Can they be forced to incriminate themselves? Perhaps jailed until they confess to whatever crime the State claims they committed?

Can they be whipped and beaten? Tortured with electrical shock or fingers cut off for stealing or any punishment the government wishes without any protection against cruel or unusual punishment?

By the way, more proof of your ignorance and that you're really a gun controller: there's no such thing as 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment grants or creates no right. It is simply, no more, no less, than a restriction on government against infringing on an already existing right. It's a restriction on government. Since you don't believe that the Constitution, or even the 2nd Amendment, places binding restrictions on government, then you wouldn't really understand the concept.

So... what were you convicted of?

www.thesellerslawfirm.com/2020/06/12/restoring-your-second-2nd-amendment-right/

 

[woodwork201]

So... what were you convicted of?

www.thesellerslawfirm.com/2020/06/12/restoring-your-second-2nd-amendment-right/

I've never been convicted of anything. Sad that you think anyone who defends the Constitution must be a criminal. Next you'll be posting that if I don't have anything to hide I wouldn't object to a warrant-less search.

Notice, though, that you totally ignored the obvious questions I asked you. Will you answer:

Does a convicted felon surrender the right to a trial by jury of his peers? Once convicted of a felony, he can forever be jailed on accusation or suspicion, no trial or conviction needed?

Once convicted of a felony, can a felon be searched by the government without any probable cause or a warrant?

Are you OK with the creep of infringement? Keep in mind that it started with violent felons, next was all felons, then became misdemeanors, and even just plain accusations... When they come for your guns, Elmer, there will be no one to defend you.

Just answer the questions. If you believe that these are true statements then we might simply disagree on interpretation and intent of the Constitution.

If, on the other hand, you believe that these other rights are not surrendered upon conviction of a crime then you are very much nothing more the gun controller I say that you are. Apparently, if you defend these other rights but not the right to keep and bear arms, then it is only on guns that you support the government violating the Constitution. You're a classic gun controller in the mold of the worst of them.

 

[Missourian]

I've never been convicted of anything. Sad that you think anyone who defends the Constitution must be a criminal. Next you'll be posting that if I don't have anything to hide I wouldn't object to a warrant-less search.

Notice, though, that you totally ignored the obvious questions I asked you. Will you answer:

Does a convicted felon surrender the right to a trial by jury of his peers? Once convicted of a felony, he can forever be jailed on accusation or suspicion, no trial or conviction needed?

Once convicted of a felony, can a felon be searched by the government without any probable cause or a warrant?

Are you OK with the creep of infringement? Keep in mind that it started with violent felons, next was all felons, then became misdemeanors, and even just plain accusations... When they come for your guns, Elmer, there will be no one to defend you.

Just answer the questions. If you believe that these are true statements then we might simply disagree on interpretation and intent of the Constitution.

If, on the other hand, you believe that these other rights are not surrendered upon conviction of a crime then you are very much nothing more the gun controller I say that you are. Apparently, if you defend these other rights but not the right to keep and bear arms, then it is only on guns that you support the government violating the Constitution. You're a classic gun controller in the mold of the worst of them.

Woodwork?

More like Straw-man.

When you are convicted of a felony, you have proven you cannot be trusted to obey the law. There is no denying that.

While I would like to see more reinstating of firearms rights...reduce the legal ownership of firearms by convicted felons is not Unconstitutional.

It is a part of the punishment... known to all before they commit a felony. If they valued their gun rights... they wouldn't have jeopardized them by committing a felony crime.

 

[Batcat]

Going after Straw Purchase has been going on for a long time and the penalty should be severe on the crime committed after the Straw Purchase and then you will see people take the law seriously

I feel anyone who straw purchases a firearm should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed by anyone using that firearm.

For example if the firearm was used to murder someone, the straw purchaser would be changed as an accessory to murder.

 

[woodwork201]

Woodwork?

More like Straw-man.

When you are convicted of a felony, you have proven you cannot be trusted to obey the law. There is no denying that.

While I would like to see more reinstating of firearms rights...reduce the legal ownership of firearms by convicted felons is not Unconstitutional.

It is a part of the punishment... known to all before they commit a felony. If they valued their gun rights... they wouldn't have jeopardized them by committing a felony crime.

Won't answer the questions, huh? Not strawmen at all; it's very much related to the topic as it is a question of constitutional or not constitutional.

So you are admitting that you don't care at all about the constitutionality of the infringement - thus proving that you are a gun controller - you just feel like it's an appropriate punishment.

You're entitled to your view on what's an appropriate punishment for crimes but you really need to quit pretending to support the Constituiton or the 2nd Amendment because you clearly support neither. You consistently avoid the subject of constitutionality regarding your view on punishment for crime.

The punishment you support is clearly not constitutional so you must certainly know that you are OK with the government violating the Constitution. Since you clearly support government operating outside the Constitution then you should not raise constitutional questions about any other outside-the-Constitution actions by Government.

You are a gun controller, plain and simple.

 

[Colin norris]

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It ends it right there - the period after shall not be infringed. There's no comma or semi-colon, there's no "but" or "except".

So, like I said, you can definitely believe that the government should decide who owns guns and who does not, ignoring that for the first 145 years of our nation the Federal Government understood that it could not regulate gun ownership. Just quit pretending to support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution; you've already proven that you support neither.

Also, since you've agreed with Nancy Pelosi and the Squad that the Government is not bound by the Constitution but, instead, can do whatever you, Nancy, and the Squad want it to do, just don't complain when you get outvoted by the Squad and Nancy and they do far more stuff you wish they hadn't than they do enforcing your authoritarianism.

I think you answered his question about criminals having guns. You don't care what they have so long as you have your lityle ego boosting toys.

 

[Stann]

First it was the executive order on right to repair... Now an actual common sense illegal gun crackdown... Going after straw purchasers is some gun control I can get behind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/guns-straw-purchases-atf-biden/2021/07/21/1ce07dcc-ea59-11eb-97a0-a09d10181e36_story.html

The governor of Iowa just passed a law saying these purchases were legal. I thought she was a total idiot before, this just proves it.