What right does he have to demand I lose my rights?

[JoeB131]

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

As I said, he has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed. No matter how tragic, his loss does not trump the rights of another.

There is no right to a gun, and letting crazy people have guns is just crazy.

 

[Spoonman]

That would be for a court to decide wouldn't it?

no, it is already decided by the 2nd amendment.

What has been decided?

Well regulated militias?

not under control of the federal government or regular army

 

[Spoonman]

What has been decided?

Well regulated militias?

It has been decided that the 2nd is an individual right irregardless of membership or service in a militia.

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

care to join our militia?

 

[Spoonman]

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

Look you dumbass THAT was the decision of the Courts.

Just as the courts will decide on any future gun restrictions

or remove the infringing ones like carry laws in chigago anc DC

 

[hunarcy]

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't
It is the job of the courts to establish the scope of the second amendment

You can't have it both ways

Either you respect the decisions of the court or you don't

The Court decided it was an individual right and had nothing to do with the militia.

The Court also decided that a woman has the right to decide to have a child or not absent interference from the state.

You indeed can’t have it both ways.

Why are you trying to change the subject? Can you not debate the topic at hand?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

As I said, he has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed. No matter how tragic, his loss does not trump the rights of another.

There is no right to a gun, and letting crazy people have guns is just crazy.

YOU ARE WRONG THE 2ND PROVIDES A RIGHT TO OWN POSSESS AND USE FIREARMS. The Supreme Court clarified that, just because you choose to be ignorant and ignoire that does not make it the law of the land dumb ass.

 

[hunarcy]

As I said, he has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed. No matter how tragic, his loss does not trump the rights of another.

There is no right to a gun, and letting crazy people have guns is just crazy.

YOU ARE WRONG THE 2ND PROVIDES A RIGHT TO OWN POSSESS AND USE FIREARMS. The Supreme Court clarified that, just because you choose to be ignorant and ignoire that does not make it the law of the land dumb ass.

Joe just lies...no reason to take him seriously at all.

 

[JoeB131]

As I said, he has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed. No matter how tragic, his loss does not trump the rights of another.

There is no right to a gun, and letting crazy people have guns is just crazy.

YOU ARE WRONG THE 2ND PROVIDES A RIGHT TO OWN POSSESS AND USE FIREARMS. The Supreme Court clarified that, just because you choose to be ignorant and ignoire that does not make it the law of the land dumb ass.

Supreme Court makes horrible decisions all the time. Dred Scott. Plessy vs. Furgeson. I would even go so far to say, Roe v. Wade. (Agree with the result, but the reasoning is awful.)

Heller threw out 200 years of juris prudence that allowed Federal, State and Local authorties to make gun laws that applied to them. It's an awful decision in every sense of the word.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd says that since a militia (i.e. an armed and capable populace) is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

Supreme Court makes horrible decisions all the time.

Heller threw out 200 years of juris prudence

In other words, the Heller decision finally threw out 200 years of the horrible decisions you just whined about.

that allowed Federal, State and Local authorties to make gun laws that applied to them.

Exactly: Laws that violated the 2nd amendment. Good riddance.

 

[JoeB131]

The 2nd says that since a militia (i.e. an armed and capable populace) is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

Supreme Court makes horrible decisions all the time.

Heller threw out 200 years of juris prudence

In other words, the Heller decision finally threw out 200 years of the horrible decisions you just whined about.

that allowed Federal, State and Local authorties to make gun laws that applied to them.

Exactly: Laws that violated the 2nd amendment. Good riddance.

The Second Amendment was about militias.

It was not about the Joker and Harley having small arsenals and hunting down cops having lunch.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The 2nd says that since a militia (i.e. an armed and capable populace) is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

Supreme Court makes horrible decisions all the time.

Heller threw out 200 years of juris prudence

In other words, the Heller decision finally threw out 200 years of the horrible decisions you just whined about.

that allowed Federal, State and Local authorties to make gun laws that applied to them.

Exactly: Laws that violated the 2nd amendment. Good riddance.

The Second Amendment was about militias.

.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

 

[Andylusion]

The 2nd says that since a militia (i.e. an armed and capable populace) is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

Supreme Court makes horrible decisions all the time.

Heller threw out 200 years of juris prudence

In other words, the Heller decision finally threw out 200 years of the horrible decisions you just whined about.

that allowed Federal, State and Local authorties to make gun laws that applied to them.

Exactly: Laws that violated the 2nd amendment. Good riddance.

The Second Amendment was about militias.

It was not about the Joker and Harley having small arsenals and hunting down cops having lunch.

Again, that's entirely irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what criminals are going to do, because they are not going to follow the law.

Do you really think that people who are considering hunting down two cops and shooting them, are going to be shocked to find a law saying people engaged in premeditated murder are not allowed to have guns?

Again.... guns are not space age technology. We're not inventing a car that runs on banana peals and pop cans. We're talking about a fire arm that has existed for 100+ years now. You can MAKE ONE at home.

No law saying "bad people can't have guns" is going to stop one single bad person from getting a gun, anymore than alcohol during the 1930s, and hemp today.

 

[jc456]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

Yes, ban guns, ban knives, and ban anything that could possibly be used as a weapon.

And before you conservatards flip out and post some stupid comment like, "durrr how culd we inforce dat ur dum lol", Australia already has exactly this policy in place. Hammers are considered tightly-regulated weapons of mass destruction there because they, too, can be used as weapons.

It's time for America to step into the 21st Century and outlaw all weapons, as well as anything else that kills people.

so then what about automobiles and trucks?

Naw, just lock everyone up and throw away the keys. You really are clueless.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, that's entirely irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what criminals are going to do, because they are not going to follow the law.

Do you really think that people who are considering hunting down two cops and shooting them, are going to be shocked to find a law saying people engaged in premeditated murder are not allowed to have guns?

Again.... guns are not space age technology. We're not inventing a car that runs on banana peals and pop cans. We're talking about a fire arm that has existed for 100+ years now. You can MAKE ONE at home.

No law saying "bad people can't have guns" is going to stop one single bad person from getting a gun, anymore than alcohol during the 1930s, and hemp today.

Here's the thing. All the big time shooters, all got their guns legally. They didnt' steal them, they didn't make them at home.

They walked into a gun store and despite being batshit crazy, were able to walk out with a lot of guns.

Here's the thing. Japan has totally banned guns. They have 11 gun murders a year.

Yes, it CAN be done.

 

[hunarcy]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

Yes, ban guns, ban knives, and ban anything that could possibly be used as a weapon.

And before you conservatards flip out and post some stupid comment like, "durrr how culd we inforce dat ur dum lol", Australia already has exactly this policy in place. Hammers are considered tightly-regulated weapons of mass destruction there because they, too, can be used as weapons.

It's time for America to step into the 21st Century and outlaw all weapons, as well as anything else that kills people.

so then what about automobiles and trucks?

Naw, just lock everyone up and throw away the keys. You really are clueless.

When they resort to talking about outlawing all weapons and citing nations that do not have our culture nor our attitudes toward protecting the rights of the accused, they are showing they really have no argument. In Japan, for example, the legal system seems to be a non-jury system which has a predictable ruling on guilt. Judges are pressured to pass a guilty verdict, ensuring high conviction, which puts pressure on citizens to avoid being entangled in it. Combine that with the fact that their population is largely homogenous and will accept that they can be held and questioned for 23 days while a confession is forced out of them and you see that we REALLY don't want their system.

 

[JoeB131]

When they resort to talking about outlawing all weapons and citing nations that do not have our culture nor our attitudes toward protecting the rights of the accused, they are showing they really have no argument. In Japan, for example, the legal system seems to be a non-jury system which has a predictable ruling on guilt. Judges are pressured to pass a guilty verdict, ensuring high conviction, which puts pressure on citizens to avoid being entangled in it. Combine that with the fact that their population is largely homogenous and will accept that they can be held and questioned for 23 days while a confession is forced out of them and you see that we REALLY don't want their system.

Meh, not really.

Japanese are not Klingons. they are more like us than we care to admit.

YOu really can have a right to a fair trial without letting crazy people buy guns.

Here's the thing about Japan. Japan's total prison population? 69,000 in 2002. Compared to the United States, which had 2 million in 2002.

In short, we are locking up a hell of a lot more of our people than the Japanese are of theirs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When they resort to talking about outlawing all weapons and citing nations that do not have our culture nor our attitudes toward protecting the rights of the accused, they are showing they really have no argument. In Japan, for example, the legal system seems to be a non-jury system which has a predictable ruling on guilt. Judges are pressured to pass a guilty verdict, ensuring high conviction, which puts pressure on citizens to avoid being entangled in it. Combine that with the fact that their population is largely homogenous and will accept that they can be held and questioned for 23 days while a confession is forced out of them and you see that we REALLY don't want their system.

Meh, not really.

Japanese are not Klingons. they are more like us than we care to admit.

YOu really can have a right to a fair trial without letting crazy people buy guns.

It is already illegal for adjudged crazy people to buy firearms, remind us how that works?

 

[JoeB131]

[

It is already illegal for adjudged crazy people to buy firearms, remind us how that works?

Very simple.

Same way every business keeps crazy people out of the workplace.

Instead of proving that you are crazy, you have to prove you aren't.

How about that for a whacky concept. Before we give you a killing machine, you have to prove you aren't the kind of person who won't use it without a good reason.

 

[Andylusion]

Again, that's entirely irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what criminals are going to do, because they are not going to follow the law.

Do you really think that people who are considering hunting down two cops and shooting them, are going to be shocked to find a law saying people engaged in premeditated murder are not allowed to have guns?

Again.... guns are not space age technology. We're not inventing a car that runs on banana peals and pop cans. We're talking about a fire arm that has existed for 100+ years now. You can MAKE ONE at home.

No law saying "bad people can't have guns" is going to stop one single bad person from getting a gun, anymore than alcohol during the 1930s, and hemp today.

Here's the thing. All the big time shooters, all got their guns legally. They didnt' steal them, they didn't make them at home.

They walked into a gun store and despite being batshit crazy, were able to walk out with a lot of guns.

Here's the thing. Japan has totally banned guns. They have 11 gun murders a year.

Yes, it CAN be done.

Apples and Oranges.

Japan and the US are completely different cultural systems. You generally don't see high murder rates from anything. Knives, Blunt Objects, anything.

They simply don't kill each other in Japan. It's an extremely homogenous society.

Again, you look around, and see Norway, with the 11th highest gun ownership in the world, and 8th lowest murder rate in the world.

How do you explain that?

Homogenous society with a strong moral code. Just like Japan. Nothing to do with guns, or gun control.

Second, when you say someone was crazy, you say that retrospectively. We know he's crazy now, but that doesn't mean anyone knew before hand.

A few years back I was working at a company where I was supervising a project, and the company hired on some guys to help out with the project. One of the guys, was perfectly fine the first week, first month. But over the course of several months I started noticing things. He started talking about how everyone was against him. How I was giving him the most difficult tasks (which the opposite is true. I didn't think he could handle the hard stuff, so I gave him the easiest tasks). Little insignificant things started ticking him off for no apparent reason.

I finally realized the guy was nutz, and he was going to blow up and kill people. I handed in my 2-weeks notice. I'm not getting shot over this fruit cake. The company was freaking out. "What do we have to do to keep you on?" I told them to get that guy out of my project. The moved him, to the front where he dealt with the production manager. Two weeks later, he flipped out on the manager, and was told to go home.

What's my point? With 20/20 hind sight, yeah how could they possibly not know that these people were nutz. In reality, you don't know. Nut jobs, do not tend to walk around with "I'm a fruit cake" stamped on their forehead. People that are fruit cakes, can act completely and totally normal and rational, until something snaps their brain, and they go bouncing off the walls.

The idea that "they should know!" is a statement by someone who has never dealt with these people. You don't know. They can talk, act, respond completely rationally. Go to the mental health facilities. They'll tell you. These people can be completely fine for months on end, and then something freaks them out, and they go loony.

Where you people get the idea that the FBI doing a back ground check, or the cashier at the gun should should magically know 'this guy is nutz'. You are wrong.

And honestly, we've tried it your way. We've tried banning guns in Aussie land, and the UK. What did that get us? Higher crime rates, higher murder rates, black market guns all over the place.

Did you know that right now, it is cheaper to get a semi-auto pistol in Australia, than in the US? You can buy a black market gun for as little as $100. The cheapest retail fire arm, last I checked was $200.

And you think you can ban guns, and lower crime? It's not happening. Ban alcohol again, and see how well that works.

 

[Agit8r]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

If somebody actually thinks that mental patients should have access to a gun, one can only possible conclude that such a person ought to be one.