The NRA won

[Quantum Windbag]

If we had run anyone else, other than maybe Huntsman, we would not have gotten 42% of the vote.

bigrebnc, if your people continue with your obstructionism, I hope you have your bunkers built and connected, because the Dems will win next year.

Actually we got 47% Jake. Stop lying.

Take a reading case. I said "If we had run anyone else . . . we would not have gotten 42%"

America is terrified of the far left, the far right, and the libertarians. Finally.

If Gary Johnson had been the nominee not even you would have been able to paint him as far right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then why the hysterica opposition to 'universal' background checks if they're already 'universal'?

Hint: they are not. You're an idiot...

...okay, that's 2 hints.

What is the hysteria about the gun show loophole?

Hint: There is no loophole, and you are a moron.

The last time I purchased a weapon at a gun show, I filled out the ATF background check on a computer kiosk. There were officers in the parking lot stopping private sales. This is in Alabama where even most Democrats are pro 2nd Amendment.

A saw an ABC report the other day where an anti gun nut said he was buying guns without a background check. Funny thing, they didn't have any video of the actual sales.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TemplarKormac, that picture of you does you justice for sure.

A crazy analogy is a crazy analogy.

Tell me, TemplarKrazy, how does this law hurt you?

And to the rest of you: notice the ad homs because the dopes have nothing else.

Question.. where is your argument?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And of course, you ignored, TemplarKormac, the important part:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

TemplarKormac, keep offering them up and they will keep getting hit out of the park.

Reactionary fringe crazees like TK are afraid to tell the whole story. They should be.

What you keep forgetting is that they upheld the right itself. Meaning you have no argument. Washed up. You want all firearms to be banned, that is why you continue to cite these things. Which I may note, is not even opinions of the court. They are opinions of opinions of the court, and have no bearing on the law as it is.

This ruling does not apply to handguns, or assault rifles. It applies to military ordinance, or weapons of mass deterrence or destruction, that would be used in warfare, like tanks, RPGs, missile launchers, anti-personnel mines, grenade launchers, fully automatic machine guns, and et cetera. In that sense our second amendment rights are limited for good reason. However, you bring this up for an entirely different reason. Gun control.

I love how you keep calling me a "reactionary fringe crazee." I've whipped you more than once, you can't seem to take the punishment.

You got warning track power bro

ctio
I do not bring up gun control at all. That is admitted in the decision, yet even bigreb goes crazy that he can't have a weapon of mass destruction. Quote the whole,: United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

The leges will pass the law, the SCOTUS will opine, and you will obey. Strike Three, your out out out.

I will not obey. I will die before I submit to tyranny. And once again, you are minus an argument. Only name calling and strawmen.

You're outta here!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which is exactly the reason for background checks, it won't stop people from shooting people, it just makes it a little harder.

Borders are imaginary lines, and background checks do not make it any harder to shoot people.

By restricting the mentally ill and criminals access to guns, it makes if more difficult to use those guns because it becomes more difficult to acquire them. It's pretty simple logic. You just chose to ignore it.

That explains why no criminals or crazy people have guns.

If it were actually common sense it would actually work. The fact that it demonstrably fails on a daily basis proves it is not common sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you keep forgetting is that they upheld the right itself. Meaning you have no argument. Washed up. You want all firearms to be banned, that is why you continue to cite these things. Which I may note, is not even opinions of the court. They are opinions of opinions of the court, and have no bearing on the law as it is.

This ruling does not apply to handguns, or assault rifles. It applies to military ordinance, or weapons of mass deterrence or destruction, that would be used in warfare, like tanks, RPGs, missile launchers, anti-personnel mines, grenade launchers, fully automatic machine guns, and et cetera. In that sense our second amendment rights are limited for good reason. However, you bring this up for an entirely different reason. Gun control.

I love how you keep calling me a "reactionary fringe crazee." I've whipped you more than once, you can't seem to take the punishment.

You got warning track power bro

ctio
I do not bring up gun control at all. That is admitted in the decision, yet even bigreb goes crazy that he can't have a weapon of mass destruction. Quote the whole,: United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

The leges will pass the law, the SCOTUS will opine, and you will obey. Strike Three, your out out out.

I will not obey. I will die before I submit to tyranny. And once again, you are minus an argument. Only name calling and strawmen.

You're outta here!

You misread the decision, you put up the strawman, and you did the name calling.

The only screaming we are hearing is the dying of the far right reactionary fringies.

No gives a **** if you die or not if you wish to revolt against the Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

ctio
I do not bring up gun control at all. That is admitted in the decision, yet even bigreb goes crazy that he can't have a weapon of mass destruction. Quote the whole,: United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

The leges will pass the law, the SCOTUS will opine, and you will obey. Strike Three, your out out out.

I will not obey. I will die before I submit to tyranny. And once again, you are minus an argument. Only name calling and strawmen.

You're outta here!

You misread the decision, you put up the strawman, and you did the name calling.

The only screaming we are hearing is the dying of the far right reactionary fringies.

No gives a **** if you die or not if you wish to revolt against the Constitution.

I didn't misread anything. In fact I study the law. You on the other hand love to misinterpret it.

But oh hey, thanks for proving my point. You are a closet liberal. Go home, you're through.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will not obey. I will die before I submit to tyranny. And once again, you are minus an argument. Only name calling and strawmen.

You're outta here!

You misread the decision, you put up the strawman, and you did the name calling.

The only screaming we are hearing is the dying of the far right reactionary fringies.

No gives a **** if you die or not if you wish to revolt against the Constitution.

I didn't misread anything. In fact I study the law. You on the other hand love to misinterpret it.

But oh hey, thanks for proving my point. You are a closet liberal. Go home, you're through.

Go talk to Scalia, tell him that, and I bet he will call you an illiterate prick. Go ask him. You write, "In fact I study the law." So did the traitor Aaron Burr. So did many of the leaders of the CSA.

Your influence in the GOP is over.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How does this make it harder "for the law abiding" citizens "to get guns"?

What a silly comment by you, M14. How does this injure you?

In 2010 there were 71,410 denials that were overturned by the FBI. The law made it harder for every single one of those people to buy a gun, even though they had no criminal record or history of mental illness.

Tell me again that this only makes it harder for criminals to get guns, I enjoy calling you a liar, which you will be every single time you make that statement in the future, even if you pretend you have not seen this post.

By the way, my numbers come from the DOJ, not the NRA.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

How has it injured you, QWB?

If the law passes, you obey it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By restricting the mentally ill and criminals access to guns, it makes if more difficult to use those guns because it becomes more difficult to acquire them.

Its already illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to have guns; you cannot restrict this to any further degree.

How does making it harder for the law-abiding to get guns make it harder for criminals and the mentall illy from comitting crimes with guns?

If it's constitutional to keep criminals from owning guns then it's constitutional to use the appropriate means necessary to enforce that law.

That means background checks are entirely appropriate and constitutional.

If it is constitutional to deny felons the right to vote, then it is constitutional to enforce that through appropriate means. We should have background checks at polling places.

That would be entirely appropriate and constitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How has it injured you, QWB?

If the law passes, you obey it.

You are now, officially, lying about the law. Want to tell me again how I have never caught you in a lie, and that you always go out of your way not to lie when you post here? This is three outright lies since you tried to pretend that you never lie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You misread the decision, you put up the strawman, and you did the name calling.

The only screaming we are hearing is the dying of the far right reactionary fringies.

No gives a **** if you die or not if you wish to revolt against the Constitution.

I didn't misread anything. In fact I study the law. You on the other hand love to misinterpret it.

But oh hey, thanks for proving my point. You are a closet liberal. Go home, you're through.

Go talk to Scalia, tell him that, and I bet he will call you an illiterate prick. Go ask him. You write, "In fact I study the law." So did the traitor Aaron Burr. So did many of the leaders of the CSA.

Your influence in the GOP is over.

Now you call me a traitor? How cute. Your influence in American politics does not exist period. I have over 200 years worth of case law at my disposal. I can research it if I want, when I want. All you have is your brainless quips, namecalling and spin.

Obama was a law professor, he knows the law, and how to exploit it. I bet he would call you an illiterate prick. Yeah you'd hate to hear that coming from your president, wouldn't ya?

Keep trolling, that's all you have left.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its already illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to have guns; you cannot restrict this to any further degree.

How does making it harder for the law-abiding to get guns make it harder for criminals and the mentall illy from comitting crimes with guns?

If it's constitutional to keep criminals from owning guns then it's constitutional to use the appropriate means necessary to enforce that law.

That means background checks are entirely appropriate and constitutional.

If it is constitutional to deny felons the right to vote, then it is constitutional to enforce that through appropriate means. We should have background checks at polling places.

That would be entirely appropriate and constitutional.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where you are reastained from the exercise of your right until after the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior restraint is unconstitutiuonal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't misread anything. In fact I study the law. You on the other hand love to misinterpret it.

But oh hey, thanks for proving my point. You are a closet liberal. Go home, you're through.

Go talk to Scalia, tell him that, and I bet he will call you an illiterate prick. Go ask him. You write, "In fact I study the law." So did the traitor Aaron Burr. So did many of the leaders of the CSA.

Your influence in the GOP is over.

Now you call me a traitor? How cute. Your influence in American politics does not exist period. I have over 200 years worth of case law at my disposal. I can research it if I want, when I want. All you have is your brainless quips, namecalling and spin.

Obama was a law professor, he knows the law, and how to exploit it. I bet he would call you an illiterate prick. Yeah you'd hate to hear that coming from your president, wouldn't ya?

Keep trolling, that's all you have left.

You far right and libertarian trolls are getting desperate. Name call, get smacked down, and you whine. Typical of fringies.

You will obey the law once passed by the lege, where it be on guns or immigration or budget, or whatever.

Break it, yes, you are criminal. Rise against the government of We the People, you are saying you are not of the People.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it's constitutional to keep criminals from owning guns then it's constitutional to use the appropriate means necessary to enforce that law.

That means background checks are entirely appropriate and constitutional.

If it is constitutional to deny felons the right to vote, then it is constitutional to enforce that through appropriate means. We should have background checks at polling places.

That would be entirely appropriate and constitutional.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where you are reastained from the exercise of your right until after the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior restraint is unconstitutiuonal.

According to whom or what? Not your interp of the Constitution, I am sure.

 

[Pete7469]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bill hasn't been passed or advanced to anything more than getting debated on, and is expected to fail anyway.

I don't view our rights to be in danger now, and for all of Jake's bullshit statistics, most people oppose gun control, and the democrooks know it. This bed wetter even claims we're going to loose in 2014? HA!!!

The democrooks are going to loose just as bad as they did in 1994, if not worse than they lost in 2010.

BTW bed wetter, the GOP lost to the moonbat messiah in 2012 not because they went too far right, it was because they ended up with Romney who tried to appeal to the sort of moderate GOP jerkoff you pretend to be. We wouldn't have ended up with him if we ignored the leftwing media's campaign to beat down everyone but the easiest guy for obozo to beat, and BTW, he BARELY beat the worst candidate the GOP could have ended up with. Keep pretending to represent the GOP though, we're well aware that you're nothing more than a pinko plant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Go talk to Scalia, tell him that, and I bet he will call you an illiterate prick. Go ask him. You write, "In fact I study the law." So did the traitor Aaron Burr. So did many of the leaders of the CSA.

Your influence in the GOP is over.

Now you call me a traitor? How cute. Your influence in American politics does not exist period. I have over 200 years worth of case law at my disposal. I can research it if I want, when I want. All you have is your brainless quips, namecalling and spin.

Obama was a law professor, he knows the law, and how to exploit it. I bet he would call you an illiterate prick. Yeah you'd hate to hear that coming from your president, wouldn't ya?

Keep trolling, that's all you have left.

You far right and libertarian trolls are getting desperate. Name call, get smacked down, and you whine. Typical of fringies.

You will obey the law once passed by the lege, where it be on guns or immigration or budget, or whatever.

Break it, yes, you are criminal. Rise against the government of We the People, you are saying you are not of the People.

Yep, you're melting down. You cannot stand that there are people who know the truth out there. Calling me a troll is indicative of such. I do not obey the law unless it is firmly rooted on a Constitutional basis. Legislative power has it's limits, by the way.

Hey, I will rise up against anyone or anything that tries to deny me of my rights as an American citizen , if that makes me a traitor in your glossy eyes, then so be it. You and your liberal friends are the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it's constitutional to keep criminals from owning guns then it's constitutional to use the appropriate means necessary to enforce that law.

That means background checks are entirely appropriate and constitutional.

If it is constitutional to deny felons the right to vote, then it is constitutional to enforce that through appropriate means. We should have background checks at polling places.

That would be entirely appropriate and constitutional.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where you are reastained from the exercise of your right until after the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior restraint is unconstitutiuonal.

Prior restraint is something entirely different. The prior restraint myth is something the gun rights extremists dreamed up long ago.

If background checks were unconstitutional they'd have been challenged and ruled so long ago. NY pistol permit applicants have been going through background checks for half a century or more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you call me a traitor? How cute. Your influence in American politics does not exist period. I have over 200 years worth of case law at my disposal. I can research it if I want, when I want. All you have is your brainless quips, namecalling and spin.

Obama was a law professor, he knows the law, and how to exploit it. I bet he would call you an illiterate prick. Yeah you'd hate to hear that coming from your president, wouldn't ya?

Keep trolling, that's all you have left.

You far right and libertarian trolls are getting desperate. Name call, get smacked down, and you whine. Typical of fringies.

You will obey the law once passed by the lege, where it be on guns or immigration or budget, or whatever.

Break it, yes, you are criminal. Rise against the government of We the People, you are saying you are not of the People.

Yep, you're melting down. You cannot stand that there are people who know the truth out there. Calling me a troll is indicative of such. I do not obey the law unless it is firmly rooted on a Constitutional basis. Legislative power has it's limits, by the way.

Hey, I will rise up against anyone or anything that tries to deny me of my rights as an American citizen , if that makes me a traitor in your glossy eyes, then so be it. You and your liberal friends are the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

The truth is this: you are wrong.

You can spell 'cognitive dissonance' and you are certainly the standard of it.

If you or any other freaks rise up, you will be put down. Permanently into your inheritance, six feet by six feet.

Don't think you are scaring anyone with your crazy threats.