Universal background checks... really?

[Porter Rockwell]

What a stupid thing to say. I accept your surrender.

You just keep getting more and more side sportingly hilarious.

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

Any "search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other unalienable Right you have.

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Is a five year old mature enough to depart from his father's house and build up his own family?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

This bullshit hyperbole prevents a reasonable discussion, in which I believe you have little interest.

Those who reach the age of majority should not be restricted on personal arms, including Uzis. We tolerate the restriction on uzis and the like because we are the only side of this decades-long discussion willing to compromise. YOU are not!!!

Most of us lost all desire to meet in the middle when people like you tried to tie the right to keep and bear arms to service in the national guard (which you claim is the militia)(it's not), or you tried to spin the use of "people" into some "collective" right (which is nonexistent and a retarded notion all rights are held individually), meaning that no individual can ever exercise the right.

Many of us want serious payback for that shit. We are ready to go to all-out, bullets-flying WAR to repeal every motherfucking gun law in the world after the bullshit you gun grabbers pulled trying to alter nature of the right. That was UNFORGIVABLE.

So, the time for compromise has passed. If you don't want children getting Uzis, accept the status quo and leave well enough alone. Otherwise, you are already engaging in war against us. We will respond with war and use the weapons we have a right to keep.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

This bullshit hyperbole prevents a reasonable discussion, in which I believe you have little interest.

Or capacity.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Well...are rights inalienable or not?

All rights are inalienable. I'm concerned with the Right to keep and bear Arms. It is an unalienable Right. I bold that word for a reason.

 

[jc456]

What a stupid thing to say. I accept your surrender.

You just keep getting more and more side sportingly hilarious.

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

Any "search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other unalienable Right you have.

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

well a sixteen year old is telling us the world is ending if we don't give her our money, so why not?

 

[hunarcy]

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

What a stupid thing to say. I accept your surrender.

You just keep getting more and more side sportingly hilarious.

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

Give it up. You've proven you know so little about the issue you're not worth arguing with. Bye.

 

[hunarcy]

What a stupid thing to say. I accept your surrender.

You just keep getting more and more side sportingly hilarious.

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

Any "search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other unalienable Right you have.

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Why do you try to distract by trying to talk about people who haven't the full rights of citizens? You're making absurd arguments. It's sad.

 

[candycorn]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Well...are rights inalienable or not?

It does not surprise me at all to discover you do not understand that not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

So the rights are not inalienable….thanks for the support.

 

[candycorn]

You just keep getting more and more side sportingly hilarious.

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

Any "search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other unalienable Right you have.

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Is a five year old mature enough to depart from his father's house and build up his own family?

No. But then again, that stipulation isn’t in the 2nd Amendment. So rights have limits…correct?

 

[candycorn]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

This bullshit hyperbole prevents a reasonable discussion, in which I believe you have little interest.

Those who reach the age of majority should not be restricted on personal arms, including Uzis. We tolerate the restriction on uzis and the like because we are the only side of this decades-long discussion willing to compromise. YOU are not!!!

Most of us lost all desire to meet in the middle when people like you tried to tie the right to keep and bear arms to service in the national guard (which you claim is the militia)(it's not), or you tried to spin the use of "people" into some "collective" right (which is nonexistent and a retarded notion all rights are held individually), meaning that no individual can ever exercise the right.

Many of us want serious payback for that shit. We are ready to go to all-out, bullets-flying WAR to repeal every motherfucking gun law in the world after the bullshit you gun grabbers pulled trying to alter nature of the right. That was UNFORGIVABLE.

So, the time for compromise has passed. If you don't want children getting Uzis, accept the status quo and leave well enough alone. Otherwise, you are already engaging in war against us. We will respond with war and use the weapons we have a right to keep.

.

Whatever…

I was demonstrating that rights are not inalienable….

The ridiculous argument made earlier that they are was blown out of the water.

PS: You’re not ready to do anything little man.

 

[candycorn]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Well...are rights inalienable or not?

All rights are inalienable. I'm concerned with the Right to keep and bear Arms. It is an unalienable Right. I bold that word for a reason.

Okay….let me rephrase; should there be any reason to deny someone from owning a firearm….any reason at all?

 

[candycorn]

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

What a stupid thing to say. I accept your surrender.

You just keep getting more and more side sportingly hilarious.

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

Give it up. You've proven you know so little about the issue you're not worth arguing with. Bye.

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[candycorn]

You just keep getting more and more side sportingly hilarious.

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

Any "search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other unalienable Right you have.

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Why do you try to distract by trying to talk about people who haven't the full rights of citizens? You're making absurd arguments. It's sad.

Saying that rights are unalienable is just as ridiculous.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Well...are rights inalienable or not?

All rights are inalienable. I'm concerned with the Right to keep and bear Arms. It is an unalienable Right. I bold that word for a reason.

Okay….let me rephrase; should there be any reason to deny someone from owning a firearm….any reason at all?

Ineligible people belong in jails, prisons, and mental health facilities and / or being supervised 24 / 7

 

[M14 Shooter]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Well...are rights inalienable or not?

It does not surprise me at all to discover you do not understand that not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

So the rights are not inalienable….thanks for the support.

That's it - double down on your ignorance.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

Any "search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other unalienable Right you have.

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Why do you try to distract by trying to talk about people who haven't the full rights of citizens? You're making absurd arguments. It's sad.

Saying that rights are unalienable is just as ridiculous.

You are too ignorant to be called an American.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Okay….let me rephrase; should there be any reason to deny someone from owning a firearm….any reason at all?

Any number of people have had their right to keep and bear arms taken from them, or do not have it in the first place.
Everyone knows this.
Well, except maybe you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Why you have gotten more and more pathetic as you weakly try to defend your ignorance.

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

Any "search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other unalienable Right you have.

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Is a five year old mature enough to depart from his father's house and build up his own family?

No. But then again, that stipulation isn’t in the 2nd Amendment. So rights have limits…correct?

Unalienable Rights are above the law.

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and exists with or without it. Modern courts had no legitimate authority to legislate from the bench and change the law. We have legislators for that.

 

[candycorn]

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Well...are rights inalienable or not?

All rights are inalienable. I'm concerned with the Right to keep and bear Arms. It is an unalienable Right. I bold that word for a reason.

Okay….let me rephrase; should there be any reason to deny someone from owning a firearm….any reason at all?

Ineligible people belong in jails, prisons, and mental health facilities and / or being supervised 24 / 7

What if you’re out on bail while awaiting trial for murder, rape, incest, armed robbery, etc…?

 

[candycorn]

You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.

The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

Any "search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other unalienable Right you have.

So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?

Why do you try to distract by trying to talk about people who haven't the full rights of citizens? You're making absurd arguments. It's sad.

Saying that rights are unalienable is just as ridiculous.

You are too ignorant to be called an American.

Well this nation voted in your blob so that can be taken as a compliment…. LOL