We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

[M14 Shooter]

And then there are the nutbags who think eveyone else is a nutbag.
You should only be allowed free speech if you are trained, licensed, and behave yourself.

Are you like somewhat retarded? When have words ever killed anyone?

I see that I was otherwordly stupid for taking you off ignore.
:doh:

 

[JoeB131]

And then there are the nutbags who think eveyone else is a nutbag.
You should only be allowed free speech if you are trained, licensed, and behave yourself.

Are you like somewhat retarded? When have words ever killed anyone?

Gosh, the word "CHARGE!!!" has racked up a pretty good body count. Ownership of a firearm-by itself-has never killed anyone either. "Trained?" "Licensed?" "Behave?" The obvious question follows: To whose, or what, standards? The ability to set mandatory but impossible standards effectively abuses a persons' rights. Examples: a $4k poll tax to vote, must be male to get a driver's license, must be Iranian to drink from the fontain.

If a majority would agree to an onerus standard for gun ownership that was unreasonable, they could probably just ban guns outright. The examples you cited (erroneously) were examples where a clear majority were trying to override a clearly defined right.

On the other hand, the right to gun ownership is qualified by "A Well-Regulated Militia" claus. That gives the states the rights to set REASONABLE regulations.

Like "You can't sell a gun to a crazy person!" or "You can't sell a gun to a convicted felon" or "You need to know which end the bullet comes out of."

Of course, I think the lst think paranoid loons who are looking for the black helicopters ever want is their sanity coming into question before they can get their binkies..

 

[Full-Auto]

Are you like somewhat retarded? When have words ever killed anyone?

Gosh, the word "CHARGE!!!" has racked up a pretty good body count. Ownership of a firearm-by itself-has never killed anyone either. "Trained?" "Licensed?" "Behave?" The obvious question follows: To whose, or what, standards? The ability to set mandatory but impossible standards effectively abuses a persons' rights. Examples: a $4k poll tax to vote, must be male to get a driver's license, must be Iranian to drink from the fontain.

If a majority would agree to an onerus standard for gun ownership that was unreasonable, they could probably just ban guns outright. The examples you cited (erroneously) were examples where a clear majority were trying to override a clearly defined right.

On the other hand, the right to gun ownership is qualified by "A Well-Regulated Militia" claus. That gives the states the rights to set REASONABLE regulations.

Like "You can't sell a gun to a crazy person!" or "You can't sell a gun to a convicted felon" or "You need to know which end the bullet comes out of."

Of course, I think the lst think paranoid loons who are looking for the black helicopters ever want is their sanity coming into question before they can get their binkies..

Regulation starts once formed. Did the call go out?

 

[JoeB131]

And then there are the nutbags who think eveyone else is a nutbag.
You should only be allowed free speech if you are trained, licensed, and behave yourself.

Are you like somewhat retarded? When have words ever killed anyone?

I see that I was otherwordly stupid for taking you off ignore.
:doh:

Awww... to bad, you are missing all the times I mock you and make you look like a knuckle dragging redneck, Clem.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_tELkI0vbU]"I'm A Danger To Myself and Others" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On the other hand, the right to gun ownership is qualified by "A Well-Regulated Militia" claus. That gives the states the rights to set REASONABLE regulations.

The McDonald Court disagrees with you.

Like "You can't sell a gun to a crazy person!" or "You can't sell a gun to a convicted felon" or "You need to know which end the bullet comes out of."

The first two are reasonable restrictions, as per the Court in Heller; the last item is not, as one’s rights can not be restricted because he may abuse them. And there is no evidence that someone ‘trained’ in the use of a firearm is less likely to commit a violent crime or realize a tragic accident than someone ‘untrained.’

Strict scrutiny is afforded to fundamental rights protected by the Constituon.

Not necessarily – in fact, not in most cases:

Given that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the “fundamental right” to possess arms in defense of the home, some courts have reasoned that strict scrutiny should apply to gun laws.
These courts usually argue that fundamental rights automatically trigger strict scrutiny. Descriptively, the courts are wrong; in numerous areas of constitutional doctrine the Supreme Court has held that a right is “fundamental” but that some other, lesser standard of review applies.
Although nearly all of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states on the grounds that the rights involved were “fundamental,” strict scrutiny is
only applied in cases arising under the First and Fifth Amendment in the Bill. Strict scrutiny is not applied in cases arising under the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments. Even in the First and Fifth Amendments, strict scrutiny is only used selectively, with less demanding standards applied to, among other things, restrictions on commercial
speech, content-neutral speech laws, sex discrimination, generally applicable laws burdening the free exercise of religion, and takings of property.

Although strict scrutiny is often called “„strict‟ in theory and fatal in fact,”
to date no court applying strict scrutiny under the Second Amendment has invalidated a gun control law. The underlying governmental end of nearly all gun laws is public safety, which is clearly a compelling government interest. The narrow tailoring prong of strict scrutiny, which is often the
greatest hurdle for challenged laws elsewhere in constitutional doctrine, has not proven to be a significant barrier for gun control yet. In some cases, the courts merely conclude the law satisfies the narrow tailoring requirement without much analysis. In other cases, narrow tailoring is satisfied by the fact that the challenged laws are not applied broadly to the public at large but target a narrow class of gun owners. In United States v. Erwin, for example, the district court explained that prohibitions on possession by people subject to a domestic violence restraining order are narrowly tailored because the ban only applies after a court determines someone is a
“credible threat to the physical safety” of an intimate partner or child.
As a result, the federal law imposed “narrowly crafted limits on when a citizen may possess a firearm.” Other courts reason that because the Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of felon possession bans even
though many felonies do not involve violence, any law more precisely tailored than the felon ban satisfies strict scrutiny’s fit requirement.

http://www.acslaw.org/files/Mehr and Winkler Standardless Second Amendment.pdf

You have not stated a single fact.

The Court created a right to privacy in Griswold that was nowhere in the Constitution. They created a right to abortion in Rowe that is nowhere in the constitution. In Miranda they created a procedure that is universally binding. The Court created an entire civil rights regime through multiple decisions starting wit Bakke that dictate what an institution must. can and cannot do when it comes to minorities.
If that isn't creating law I don't know what is.

Wrong, on all counts.

 

[eflatminor]

Are you like somewhat retarded? When have words ever killed anyone?

I see that I was otherwordly stupid for taking you off ignore.
:doh:

Awww... to bad, you are missing all the times I mock you and make you look like a knuckle dragging redneck, Clem.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_tELkI0vbU]"I'm A Danger To Myself and Others" - YouTube[/ame]

Yes, all shooting enthusiasts look that that.

Gentlemen, I give you world champion shooter Jessie Abbate:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiaPkuPvqSI]2010 S&W USPSA Back to Back Nationals - Jessie Abbate - YouTube[/ame]

Hmmm...So, what drew you to that picture of fat guys?

 

[JoeB131]

Pretty much what all you clowns look like. Guys who need guns because you haven't seen your "units" in years.

Seriously, if it weren't for all the people who get killed every year because of you nuts, it would almost be funny. Or Darwinian.

 

[The T]

Pretty much what all you clowns look like. Guys who need guns because you haven't seen your "units" in years.

Seriously, if it weren't for all the people who get killed every year because of you nuts, it would almost be funny. Or Darwinian.

You are one huge jackass.

 

[JoeB131]

Pretty much what all you clowns look like. Guys who need guns because you haven't seen your "units" in years.

Seriously, if it weren't for all the people who get killed every year because of you nuts, it would almost be funny. Or Darwinian.

You are one huge jackass.

Not at all. I think it's hilarious that this is even a political issue in this part of the world. Most of the rest of the world does not have an armed citizenry and they get along just fine.

I find it amusing that you were all standing on teh front porch with your shotguns while the Banksters stole everything you had without getting anywhere near you.

 

[Contumacious]

Not at all. I think it's hilarious that this is even a political issue in this part of the world. Most of the rest of the world does not have an armed citizenry and they get along just fine.

.

Mass Graves At Nazi Death Camp Treblinka Proves Holocaust Deniers Wrong

.

 

[JoeB131]

Ummm, guy, that was an act of war... dumb-ass.

Actually, Germany had a pretty high rate of private gun ownership prior to WWII. You know who took most of the German private guns away?

Dwight D. Eisenhower. Thank Pinko, commie...

The delusion tha if the government ever decided they were going to take over and would be opposed by a bunch of rednecks with squirrel guns is laughable. They government will always have more guns, bigger guns and will be better trained with them. And when they do take out the assholes with guns, it is usually to the wild cheers of their neighbors.

 

[eflatminor]

And when they do take out the assholes with guns, it is usually to the wild cheers of their neighbors.

So you support turning the military on its citizens. Wonderful. How very hawkish of you.

...and will be better trained with them

True the military has the big guns but when it comes to firearms, military personnel are not trained to the level of America's shooting enthusiasts, which are not the fat redneck hicks you seem to fantasize about so vividly. Every week we invite service members to participate in IPSC, 3 Gun, Bullseye, and Sporting Clays competition. Without the kind of practice and training we civilians engage in, the soldiers are NEVER competitive. Once they spend a few years shooting like we do, they can get good, but the army doesn't make them great shots, time at a private range and participation in weekly matches does.

Sorry to interrupt your delusions with facts.

 

[JoeB131]

And when they do take out the assholes with guns, it is usually to the wild cheers of their neighbors.

So you support turning the military on its citizens. Wonderful. How very hawkish of you.

...and will be better trained with them

If you are the kind of dangerous asshole who thinks you need guns because you can't win elections, yes, then I want the government to take you out. With extreme prejudice.

 

[Contumacious]

Ummm, guy, that was an act of war... dumb-ass.

Actually, Germany had a pretty high rate of private gun ownership prior to WWII. You know who took most of the German private guns away?

HUH?

What war fucktard? The Nazi vs Jews one?

"In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed. The Jews lost their right to be German citizens and marriage between Jews and non-Jews was forbidden. It was after this law that the violence against the Jew really openly started. Those that could pay a fine were allowed to leave the country. Many could not and many shops refused to sell food to those who remained. Medicines were also difficult to get hold of as chemists would not sell to Jews."

.

 

[The T]

Ummm, guy, that was an act of war... dumb-ass.

Actually, Germany had a pretty high rate of private gun ownership prior to WWII. You know who took most of the German private guns away?

HUH?

What war fucktard? The Nazi vs Jews one?

"In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed. The Jews lost their right to be German citizens and marriage between Jews and non-Jews was forbidden. It was after this law that the violence against the Jew really openly started. Those that could pay a fine were allowed to leave the country. Many could not and many shops refused to sell food to those who remained. Medicines were also difficult to get hold of as chemists would not sell to Jews."

.

Anyone that didn't tow the party line, wasn't a member of the party...or those deemed enemies of the state lost all liberty.

 

[JoeB131]

Ummm, guy, that was an act of war... dumb-ass.

Actually, Germany had a pretty high rate of private gun ownership prior to WWII. You know who took most of the German private guns away?

HUH?

What war fucktard? The Nazi vs Jews one?

"In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed. The Jews lost their right to be German citizens and marriage between Jews and non-Jews was forbidden. It was after this law that the violence against the Jew really openly started. Those that could pay a fine were allowed to leave the country. Many could not and many shops refused to sell food to those who remained. Medicines were also difficult to get hold of as chemists would not sell to Jews."

.

Most of the German Jews left the country before the war started. The ones who died in the concentration camps were Polish Jews, Russian Jews, etc.

But let's use your fantasy scenario and assume the German Jews had guns, and man, they were going to take on the Nazis and teach them a lesson!

What you forget about your German history is that the reason the Nazis were voted in was because the communist and left leaning parties were using political violence on a daily basis to get their way, and average Germans just wanted someone to restore order.

Read about the Spartacist movement or the FreiKorps in the 1920's....

 

[kaz]

Your gun license should be suspended if you are caught drunk

If they applied that standard to you for posting drunk on message boards, you'd be serving some serious hard time right now...

 

[eflatminor]

I want the government to take you out. With extreme prejudice.

Ah, the tolerant Left. So full of peace and love.

 

[Full-Auto]

I want the government to take you out. With extreme prejudice.

Ah, the tolerant Left. So full of peace and love.

If he couldnt talk out of his ass, he wouldnt be able to speak....

 

[JoeB131]

I want the government to take you out. With extreme prejudice.

Ah, the tolerant Left. So full of peace and love.

If your the kind of lunatic who thinks he should overthrow the elected government with weapons, no matter if your name is Tim McVeigh or William Ayers, I want the government to deal with you- harshly.

The only radicals I see here is people who think they should be able to overturn elections with firearms.