Supreme Court Strikes Down Blatently Unconstitional Gun Regulation

[miketx]

I notice you haven't argued in a while for or against any of the gun controlling posts you made that I keep posting for the world to see. Name calling is a much better tactic than defending your stated positions when the facts prove you're a gun controller.

You're a lying democrat pos. Die soon.

 

[miketx]

I notice you haven't argued in a while for or against any of the gun controlling posts you made that I keep posting for the world to see. Name calling is a much better tactic than defending your stated positions when the facts prove you're a gun controller.

Keep lying democrat. You need the practice.

 

[miketx]

Kavanaugh is a self-centered, self-righteous, SOB, no doubt, but what did he fuck up in this one? Not doubting; I just don't know.

Sounds like a description of you, commie.

 

[beagle9]

Calling me a leftist is a good diversion for a gun controller trying to turn attention away from his own statements. What you really don't like is being pointed out for the Fudd gun controller that you are.

Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:

​

I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing.​

​

I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored.​

Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration. You support both or you support neither.

And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller. So you're not an originalist, you don't support "shall not be infringed", and you don't support the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller.

You're just about as anti-2nd Amendment as any one I know of not a member of one of Bloomberg's anti-gun clubs.

Anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns. Do you not have even a quarter of a brain?

There's probably something you don't know about criminals, I guess, so let me enlighten you: criminals don't follow the law. I know. That must be quite a shock for that less-than-a-quarter of a brain you have but it's actually true. You can google it if you don't believe me.

So all you prove with your posts is that you're ignorant of the world around you and that you have bought into the leftist gun control ideas.

Points emboldened above, are to be addressed one by one next.

1. Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration..

We've had background checks forever right, and yes when you buy a gun legally in a gun store, show and etc, then it is registered to your name correct, so what changes on that front ???

Hmmmm, is it your fear that any new gun control ideas might include a notary that is placed in between private gun sales or gun gift transfers in order to show where the gun's might be going, otherwise when being passed around between friends and neighbors or in other such situations ?? I'm not aware or sure about that type of privacy issue being breached, and I'm not for anything like that if it involves good citizen's rights being oppressed when it comes to passing gun's amongst themselves as in the cases of trading, gifts, and etc. Criminal's are a different story. We need to intercept any exchanges of weapon's between criminals by immediately confiscating such weapon's that are being carried or exchanged by them.

2. And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller.

Did I say mandatory anywhere??? Nope,but you attempted to assign that to me because I mentioned storage in the context of having self guiding rules in which should be practiced, and should therefore become all responsible gun owners thinking that to store their guns responsibly is a huge part of responsible gun ownership. How can you or anyone argue that point ??? If you got confused on what I was relaying here, then I hope it cleared it up for you. Don't have to worry about criminal's following such self guiding rules or practices.

3.  Laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns.

Here you go again, assigning false analysis of my understanding of such things, when I know criminal's don't obey the laws, but how do you put a criminal on notice if the left protects them and their criminality ? We should be able to deal with the criminal element without causing our rights to be diminished in the process, but that's not the way that the left goes about this stuff, so I agree that we should push back on the left, but we should also recognize that Houston we have a huge problem on our hands when it comes to Democrat's and criminal's these days.

Up to me I'd go after criminal's only, and never attempt to take away any rights the good citizen's have, and I would expect the good citizen's to help in addressing the issue, and to come up with ways in which to battle these tragic events with great solutions and not with stupid emotional rhetoric.

 

[whoisit]

Anyone ever wonder why it is murder and a human baby if you cause a woman to lose her " CHILD" yet its just a glob of tissue if she wants to 'lose'it?

 

[woodwork201]

1. Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration..

We've had background checks forever right, and yes when you buy a gun legally in a gun store, show and etc, then it is registered to your name correct, so what changes on that front ???

Hmmmm, is it your fear that any new gun control ideas might include a notary that is placed in between private gun sales or gun gift transfers in order to show where the gun's might be going, otherwise when being passed around between friends and neighbors or in other such situations ?? I'm not aware or sure about that type of privacy issue being breached, and I'm not for anything like that if it involves good citizen's rights being oppressed when it comes to passing gun's amongst themselves as in the cases of trading, gifts, and etc. Criminal's are a different story. We need to intercept any exchanges of weapon's between criminals by immediately confiscating such weapon's that are being carried or exchanged by them.

What you and your gun controlling Democrat buddies are asking for is universal background checks, not just continuing the current, ineffective, useless, unconstitutional, state of background checks and government permission to own a gun.

I'm going to explain this to you even though it has been explained by others many times and you're well aware of it - but you pretend ignorance to justify your push for gun control, registration and, ultimately, confiscation.

In order to enforce universal background checks there must, not might, not should, but must, be full gun registration. Otherwise, how can you and your friends in the ATF know that a background check is completed when a gun is transferred?

Though the current state of background checks amounts to gun registration already, at least there are guns in the hands of the people that are not on the government lists, and I can sell my guns to anyone I believe to not be a criminal without telling the government I did so and I can buy a gun from someone without telling the government I did so.

I'm curious, though; do you support background checks on the right to vote? The Constitution actually explicitly states that the right to vote can be taken for serious crimes. Should there be background checks in order to vote?

Should there be background checks before we let someone write a letter to their Congressman or otherwise protest or argue grievances against the government under the 1st Amendment?

Should there be background checks before we allow a jury trial or an attorney?

2. And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller.

Did I say mandatory anywhere??? Nope,but you attempted to assign that to me because I mentioned storage in the context of having self guiding rules in which should be practiced, and should therefore become all responsible gun owners thinking that to store their guns responsibly is a huge part of responsible gun ownership. How can you or anyone argue that point ??? If you got confused on what I was relaying here, then I hope it cleared it up for you. Don't have to worry about criminal's following such self guiding rules or practices.

Yes, you did imply mandatory storage. Don't be a liar along with being a gun controller. The discussion was what gun control you support and you said you support storage requirements. You used as strong of a statement regarding storage as you did about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and background checks.

You didn't say mandatory for any of those; you just said that all of those are gun controls that you support. I'm certain you didn't mean they were all just good suggestions but that none of them should be mandatory.

With every post you make, you show yourself to be more and more like the Brady's and the Bloombergs. You support gun control and lie about what your goals are. But, unlike them, they at least admit they're gun controllers.

You keep asking for the same things they ask for while claiming to to not be a gun controller. You defend the existing, unconstitutional, laws that don't work at all to reduce crime. Since reducing crime isn't your objective (unless you really are that stupid to believe that they do reduce crime) then gun control on otherwise law-abiding Americans must be your objective.

3.  Laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns.

Here you go again, assigning false analysis of my understanding of such things, when I know criminal's don't obey the laws, but how do you put a criminal on notice if the left protects them and their criminality ? We should be able to deal with the criminal element without causing our rights to be diminished in the process, but that's not the way that the left goes about this stuff, so I agree that we should push back on the left, but we should also recognize that Houston we have a huge problem on our hands when it comes to Democrat's and criminal's these days.

Up to me I'd go after criminal's only, and never attempt to take away any rights the good citizen's have, and I would expect the good citizen's to help in addressing the issue, and to come up with ways in which to battle these tragic events with great solutions and not with stupid emotional rhetoric.

So, instead of going after criminals for being criminals, you support gun control under the false promise (that means lie) of reduced crime by regulating the guns of law-abiding citizens.

How does a law forbidding anyone from owning a gun put criminals on notice? On notice of what? On notice that gun controllers are stupid and that the criminals can actually get away with anything they want because nobody actually gives a shit about them having guns and nobody wants to put them in jail for their crimes?

Or is there some other notice that you believe you're giving to criminals? Whatever it is, they don't seem to be getting the message.

Like most of the left, who don't really understand the real world situation of gun ownership and crime and that they're not nearly as related as their masters are telling them, you just want to do something because we have a problem. So, like them, lead with your emotionally based, completely unfounded, gun controls on the law-abiding, rather than addressing crime.

If you really want to address crime, you first put criminals into prison for very long terms in very hard conditions.

Then, you start addressing the root causes; strip the gangs of their money and power, just as we did with the 21st Amendment, and end prohibition.
Then you fix the education system and give all Americans, no matter where they live, or what race they are, the opportunity to choose quality schools, private or public, and their school tax dollars go with the child, not with the school.

And, lastly, you quit paying mothers to make babies as a source of welfare income and hold fathers accountable - including jail for failure to do so, for the children they make.

This is how you effect crime. More laws and regulations on law-abiding Americans, because only law-abiding Americans follow the law (remember; I taught you that earlier in this thread) does nothing to effect crime.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

This was once an interesting thread. Now it is nonsensical. I confess it is amusing seeing these Republican 2nd Amendment fanatics turn viciously on each other, accusing each other of being “Demoncrats” or worse. Whatever … guess it’s a sign of the times.

This new guy, @wordwork201 , certainly is a despicable basket case.
On that, at least, I’m with our nutty but still more down-to-earth Trump supporters.

 

[woodwork201]

This was once an interesting thread. Now it is nonsensical. I confess it is amusing seeing these Republican 2nd Amendment fanatics turn viciously on each other, accusing each other of being “Demoncrats” or worse. Whatever … guess it’s a sign of the times.

This new guy, @wordwork201 , certainly is a despicable basket case.
On that, at least, I’m with our nutty but still more down-to-earth Trump supporters.

I get under your skin, don't I? That's easy to do when you present the truth to liars.. These Fudd gun controllers who may happen to vote Republican but are certainly not supporters of the 2nd Amendment respond with the personal and name-calling attacks as well - because they, like you, just can't win on the Constitution, the facts, or even just plain logic...

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[beagle9]

What you and your gun controlling Democrat buddies are asking for is universal background checks, not just continuing the current, ineffective, useless, unconstitutional, state of background checks and government permission to own a gun.

I'm going to explain this to you even though it has been explained by others many times and you're well aware of it - but you pretend ignorance to justify your push for gun control, registration and, ultimately, confiscation.

In order to enforce universal background checks there must, not might, not should, but must, be full gun registration. Otherwise, how can you and your friends in the ATF know that a background check is completed when a gun is transferred?

Though the current state of background checks amounts to gun registration already, at least there are guns in the hands of the people that are not on the government lists, and I can sell my guns to anyone I believe to not be a criminal without telling the government I did so and I can buy a gun from someone without telling the government I did so.

I'm curious, though; do you support background checks on the right to vote? The Constitution actually explicitly states that the right to vote can be taken for serious crimes. Should there be background checks in order to vote?

Should there be background checks before we let someone write a letter to their Congressman or otherwise protest or argue grievances against the government under the 1st Amendment?

Should there be background checks before we allow a jury trial or an attorney?

Yes, you did imply mandatory storage. Don't be a liar along with being a gun controller. The discussion was what gun control you support and you said you support storage requirements. You used as strong of a statement regarding storage as you did about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and background checks.

You didn't say mandatory for any of those; you just said that all of those are gun controls that you support. I'm certain you didn't mean they were all just good suggestions but that none of them should be mandatory.

With every post you make, you show yourself to be more and more like the Brady's and the Bloombergs. You support gun control and lie about what your goals are. But, unlike them, they at least admit they're gun controllers.

You keep asking for the same things they ask for while claiming to to not be a gun controller. You defend the existing, unconstitutional, laws that don't work at all to reduce crime. Since reducing crime isn't your objective (unless you really are that stupid to believe that they do reduce crime) then gun control on otherwise law-abiding Americans must be your objective.


So, instead of going after criminals for being criminals, you support gun control under the false promise (that means lie) of reduced crime by regulating the guns of law-abiding citizens.

How does a law forbidding anyone from owning a gun put criminals on notice? On notice of what? On notice that gun controllers are stupid and that the criminals can actually get away with anything they want because nobody actually gives a shit about them having guns and nobody wants to put them in jail for their crimes?

Or is there some other notice that you believe you're giving to criminals? Whatever it is, they don't seem to be getting the message.

Like most of the left, who don't really understand the real world situation of gun ownership and crime and that they're not nearly as related as their masters are telling them, you just want to do something because we have a problem. So, like them, lead with your emotionally based, completely unfounded, gun controls on the law-abiding, rather than addressing crime.

If you really want to address crime, you first put criminals into prison for very long terms in very hard conditions.

Then, you start addressing the root causes; strip the gangs of their money and power, just as we did with the 21st Amendment, and end prohibition.
Then you fix the education system and give all Americans, no matter where they live, or what race they are, the opportunity to choose quality schools, private or public, and their school tax dollars go with the child, not with the school.

And, lastly, you quit paying mothers to make babies as a source of welfare income and hold fathers accountable - including jail for failure to do so, for the children they make.

This is how you effect crime. More laws and regulations on law-abiding Americans, because only law-abiding Americans follow the law (remember; I taught you that earlier in this thread) does nothing to effect crime.

What you and your gun controlling Democrat buddies are asking for is universal background checks, not just continuing the current, ineffective, useless, unconstitutional, state of background checks and government permission to own a gun.

I'm going to explain this to you even though it has been explained by others many times and you're well aware of it - but you pretend ignorance to justify your push for gun control, registration and, ultimately, confiscation.

In order to enforce universal background checks there must, not might, not should, but must, be full gun registration. Otherwise, how can you and your friends in the ATF know that a background check is completed when a gun is transferred?

Though the current state of background checks amounts to gun registration already, at least there are guns in the hands of the people that are not on the government lists, and I can sell my guns to anyone I believe to not be a criminal without telling the government I did so and I can buy a gun from someone without telling the government I did so.

I'm curious, though; do you support background checks on the right to vote? The Constitution actually explicitly states that the right to vote can be taken for serious crimes. Should there be background checks in order to vote?

Should there be background checks before we let someone write a letter to their Congressman or otherwise protest or argue grievances against the government under the 1st Amendment?

Should there be background checks before we allow a jury trial or an attorney?

Yes, you did imply mandatory storage. Don't be a liar along with being a gun controller. The discussion was what gun control you support and you said you support storage requirements. You used as strong of a statement regarding storage as you did about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and background checks.

You didn't say mandatory for any of those; you just said that all of those are gun controls that you support. I'm certain you didn't mean they were all just good suggestions but that none of them should be mandatory.

With every post you make, you show yourself to be more and more like the Brady's and the Bloombergs. You support gun control and lie about what your goals are. But, unlike them, they at least admit they're gun controllers.

You keep asking for the same things they ask for while claiming to to not be a gun controller. You defend the existing, unconstitutional, laws that don't work at all to reduce crime. Since reducing crime isn't your objective (unless you really are that stupid to believe that they do reduce crime) then gun control on otherwise law-abiding Americans must be your objective.


So, instead of going after criminals for being criminals, you support gun control under the false promise (that means lie) of reduced crime by regulating the guns of law-abiding citizens.

How does a law forbidding anyone from owning a gun put criminals on notice? On notice of what? On notice that gun controllers are stupid and that the criminals can actually get away with anything they want because nobody actually gives a shit about them having guns and nobody wants to put them in jail for their crimes?

Or is there some other notice that you believe you're giving to criminals? Whatever it is, they don't seem to be getting the message.

Like most of the left, who don't really understand the real world situation of gun ownership and crime and that they're not nearly as related as their masters are telling them, you just want to do something because we have a problem. So, like them, lead with your emotionally based, completely unfounded, gun controls on the law-abiding, rather than addressing crime.

If you really want to address crime, you first put criminals into prison for very long terms in very hard conditions.

Then, you start addressing the root causes; strip the gangs of their money and power, just as we did with the 21st Amendment, and end prohibition.
Then you fix the education system and give all Americans, no matter where they live, or what race they are, the opportunity to choose quality schools, private or public, and their school tax dollars go with the child, not with the school.

And, lastly, you quit paying mothers to make babies as a source of welfare income and hold fathers accountable - including jail for failure to do so, for the children they make.

This is how you effect crime. More laws and regulations on law-abiding Americans, because only law-abiding Americans follow the law (remember; I taught you that earlier in this thread) does nothing to effect crime.

Listen you knucklehead, quit trying to use me in order to create these ridiculously long attention loathing post that don't address the problem's of today, and stop your lying about my position on the good citizen's being left alone while the criminal's and crazies are somehow looked to be stopped for possessing gun's in which they use to attack us in an environment that has caused the good citizen's to feel as if they are no longer represented in this nation.

 

[woodwork201]

Listen you knucklehead, quit trying to use me in order to create these ridiculously long attention loathing post that don't address the problem's of today, and stop your lying about my position on the good citizen's being left alone while the criminal's and crazies are somehow looked to be stopped for possessing gun's in which they use to attack us in an environment that has caused the good citizen's to feel as if they are no longer represented in this nation.

I'm not using you for anything except as an example of a gun-control-wolf dressed in a 2nd Amendment t-shirt.

The Constitution says, shall not be infringed. You say shall be infringed.

How has the laws against felons possessing guns reduced crime? Can you name a single case where background checks weren't passed before a shooter shot up a school?

Even in Sandy Hook, the mother passed the background check but her own son shot her to get the gun. Just what law in the current set or any other set of laws you propose would have stopped Sandy Hook?

Just like the rest of your gun-controlling, leftist, buddies, you're either falling for the lies of the Everytown group or you're talking out of emotion and not logic (because you can't offer a single logical defense of any gun control law in the United States today), or, the most likely case, you just hate that there are guns in the hands of the people and you're doing your part to make the case to get them removed.

It is not guns that make the good citizens feel unsafe; it's the leftists letting violent, convicted, felons back out on the streets. Rather than supporting the work of solving the actual problem, you are calling for the things that you and I, and everyone else, knows will not, has not, can not, work. Since you and I both know it can not work then your motive can not possibly be the safety, perceived or real, of the good citizens but must be, instead, taking the guns out of the hands of the good citizens - since we know the laws don't take the guns out of the bad citizens.

 

[beagle9]

I'm not using you for anything except as an example of a gun-control-wolf dressed in a 2nd Amendment t-shirt.

The Constitution says, shall not be infringed. You say shall be infringed.

How has the laws against felons possessing guns reduced crime? Can you name a single case where background checks weren't passed before a shooter shot up a school?

Even in Sandy Hook, the mother passed the background check but her own son shot her to get the gun. Just what law in the current set or any other set of laws you propose would have stopped Sandy Hook?

Just like the rest of your gun-controlling, leftist, buddies, you're either falling for the lies of the Everytown group or you're talking out of emotion and not logic (because you can't offer a single logical defense of any gun control law in the United States today), or, the most likely case, you just hate that there are guns in the hands of the people and you're doing your part to make the case to get them removed.

It is not guns that make the good citizens feel unsafe; it's the leftists letting violent, convicted, felons back out on the streets. Rather than supporting the work of solving the actual problem, you are calling for the things that you and I, and everyone else, knows will not, has not, can not, work. Since you and I both know it can not work then your motive can not possibly be the safety, perceived or real, of the good citizens but must be, instead, taking the guns out of the hands of the good citizens - since we know the laws don't take the guns out of the bad citizens.

You are one basket case from hell that's for sure.

So don't talk about doing a damned thing to help somehow, just duck and cover when the next shooter shows up at an event, and worse advertises his intent prior, and even worse than that he was found to be a career criminal, and then way worse than that he freely killed innocent men, women, and children with impunity at those events..... Now you sit there gripping your guns tight thinking wow I dodged those bullet's that time, and thank goodness it wasn't my family that got killed, and now you think "I gotta get on the internet to stop anyone from talking about solutions because it might cause a negative reaction or situation that makes my guns an issue because of these freakazoids now out there doing what they've been doing.

I understand your fear, and I'm with you on your concerns, but why don't you give some damned solutional input instead of just sitting there gripping your guns super tight in fear, yet meanwhile innocent citizen's are dying at the hand's of these killer's who are taking advantage of our lax in ideas and solutions that would keep our rights active, but somehow remove their abilities to abuse us when they are easily infiltrating the chicken houses as the wolves for which they are.