guns

[BigUnionGuy]

You simply advance the NBA political agenda without thought beyond their well established fear baiting.

What does the professional basketball league, have to do with it ?

Without a crime an individual's second amendment right can be denied. So why not in gun free zones? Why not at gun shows? Why not require universal background checks? Those seem to be common sense gun laws to me.

There is no "gun show" loophole.

Just as.... you don't need to conduct a background check, on selling other personal items.

Trying to set some "arbitrary" number, that qualifies you as a gun dealer ?

Obummer (and his collective brain trust) are nothing short of genius.


He has been responsible for more gun sales.... ever ?

Now, he is advocating for more licensed gun dealers.


Have at it.

 

[moreluck]

 

[moreluck]

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Do you disregard the idea of jurisprudence then? Are you in fact saying all gun laws are unconstitutional? That goes far beyond conservative nonsense.

But we might actually agree that mentally ill people should not have access to guns...but that doesn't fit, does it? Mental illness is not a crime. Why should someone suffering mental illness have (what you assert are) his constitutional rights infringed upon? No crime committed.

If that's your low bar for "the librals gonna take 'r' guns 'way!" then you're simply unhinged from reality. But if instead you think that such laws protect the individual and the public from citizens who have demonstrated the inability to exercise their second amendment right, absent any crime, then you are in fact in favor of gun control laws and we are simply talking different degrees.

Or...

You simply advance the NBA political agenda without thought beyond their well established fear baiting.

That post didn't address any of the points I've made.

 

[bbsam]

That post didn't address any of the points I've made.

Because you didn't make any.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Because you didn't make any.

Then you are either ridiculously lacking basic reading comprehension or just didn't attempt to read it.

 

[bbsam]

Then you are either ridiculously lacking basic reading comprehension or just didn't attempt to read it.

Incorrect on both.

You are introducing gay marriage into the conversation and saying it is not the same as gun rights. For the sake of argument, and in the context of this "guns" thread, I am going to 100% agree.

Now, I am asking you if you are going to insist that jurisprudence does not exist, that 200 years of court interpretation, clarification, upholding laws and striking down statutes has no bearing on how today's court does and should consider the cases that come before it? Are you insisting that there is one way and only one way that the Second Amendment can be understood?

Cause, well, that's kinda what jurisprudence is and anyone thinking it shouldn't or doesn't play into court decisions has a very rudimentary understanding of this system of government.

 

[wayfair]

And that is a regulation,.right?

"The firearm is a tool - the problem is the fool - 1st fool is the one that misuses the tool - 2nd fool is the one who thinks he can keep the 1st fool from doing foolish things."

 

[bbsam]

"The firearm is a tool - the problem is the fool - 1st fool is the one that misuses the tool - 2nd fool is the one who thinks he can keep the 1st fool from doing foolish things."

I'll take that as a "yes".

 

[wayfair]

I'll take that as a "yes".

established when?

 

[bbsam]

established when?

As soon as you resorted to silly nursery rhymes rather than an honest answer.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Incorrect on both.

You are introducing gay marriage into the conversation and saying it is not the same as gun rights. For the sake of argument, and in the context of this "guns" thread, I am going to 100% agree.

Now, I am asking you if you are going to insist that jurisprudence does not exist, that 200 years of court interpretation, clarification, upholding laws and striking down statutes has no bearing on how today's court does and should consider the cases that come before it? Are you insisting that there is one way and only one way that the Second Amendment can be understood?

Cause, well, that's kinda what jurisprudence is and anyone thinking it shouldn't or doesn't play into court decisions has a very rudimentary understanding of this system of government.

First of all.....I wasnt the one that introduced gay marriage into this. Secondly.... I pointed out the fact that SCOTUS should have deferred to The 10th.

Now you are evading that point and blabbering about nothing because you know I'm right or really are too far gone in your liberalism. Marriage, not just gay marriage, is NOT a right guaranteed by The Constitution. Therefore..... it should fall under The 10th. Anyone with any sense at all should get that. But you liberals can't think straight due to drowning in your own emotions. For that reason it's hopeless trying to get any of this through to you people. I'm ashamed at having even wasted my time trying.

 

[wayfair]

As soon as you resorted to silly nursery rhymes rather than an honest answer.

can't you just answer a question? geez

 

[brett636]

First of all.....I wasnt the one that introduced gay marriage into this. Secondly.... I pointed out the fact that SCOTUS should have deferred to The 10th.

Now you are evading that point and blabbering about nothing because you know I'm right or really are too far gone in your liberalism. Marriage, not just gay marriage, is NOT a right guaranteed by The Constitution. Therefore..... it should fall under The 10th. Anyone with any sense at all should get that. But you liberals can't think straight due to drowning in your own emotions. For that reason it's hopeless trying to get any of this through to you people. I'm ashamed at having even wasted my time trying.

It is interesting how liberals seem to find "rights" that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution like gay marriage, but then attack rights that are laid out in plain English such as the 2nd amendment.

 

[bbsam]

First of all.....I wasnt the one that introduced gay marriage into this. Secondly.... I pointed out the fact that SCOTUS should have deferred to The 10th.

Now you are evading that point and blabbering about nothing because you know I'm right or really are too far gone in your liberalism. Marriage, not just gay marriage, is NOT a right guaranteed by The Constitution. Therefore..... it should fall under The 10th. Anyone with any sense at all should get that. But you liberals can't think straight due to drowning in your own emotions. For that reason it's hopeless trying to get any of this through to you people. I'm ashamed at having even wasted my time trying.

You keep wanting to talk about marriage. You say you didn't bring it up. I assure you that I didn't.

Now if you're referring that as a case of suggesting that is legislating from the bench, well, how can that be? As you said, marriage has to be.left a state issue and therefore the entire idea of DOMA should have been unconstitutional from day one.

And the Court made a ruling on gay marriage in one case recently. I think a couple states have resisted. A judge in Alabama (?) a county clerk in Kentucky. But for the most part, the country seems ready to move on.

But if what you are saying is that states have the right to discriminate and treat certain citizens as second class because the 10th Amendment says they can, then you are wrong. It's unfortunate that something like the Civil Rights movement ever had to take place. It's ludicrous that the federal government ever passed DOMA in the first place. That the citizens of individual states feel qualified to subjugate "others" to "less than" status because of the 10th Amendment is a grotesque twisting of the liberty that America has always proclaimed. It really is too bad it takes the Supreme Court to decide that for us.

I'm ashamed that in 2016 this even has to be explained to my fellow countrymen.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

It is interesting how liberals seem to find "rights" that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution like gay marriage, but then attack rights that are laid out in plain English such as the 2nd amendment.

You keep wanting to talk about marriage. You say you didn't bring it up. I assure you that I didn't.

Now if you're referring that as a case of suggesting that is legislating from the bench, well, how can that be? As you said, marriage has to be.left a state issue and therefore the entire idea of DOMA should have been unconstitutional from day one.

And the Court made a ruling on gay marriage in one case recently. I think a couple states have resisted. A judge in Alabama (?) a county clerk in Kentucky. But for the most part, the country seems ready to move on.

But if what you are saying is that states have the right to discriminate and treat certain citizens as second class because the 10th Amendment says they can, then you are wrong. It's unfortunate that something like the Civil Rights movement ever had to take place. It's ludicrous that the federal government ever passed DOMA in the first place. That the citizens of individual states feel qualified to subjugate "others" to "less than" status because of the 10th Amendment is a grotesque twisting of the liberty that America has always proclaimed. It really is too bad it takes the Supreme Court to decide that for us.

I'm ashamed that in 2016 this even has to be explained to my fellow countrymen.

Marriage is not a right and denying it to someone is ONLY discrimination in the eyes of emotional nutjobs. The fact that liberals are so supportive of gay marriage and not the right to bear arms should be an indicator of just how confused they are. It's those overactive emotions I tell ya.

 

[Babagounj]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/14/massad-ayoobs-10-commandments-of-concealed-carry/

The gun is not a magic talisman that wards off evil. It is a special-purpose emergency rescue tool: no more, no less.

It’s not about convenience; it’s about life and death.

 

[Babagounj]

Incorrect on both.

You are introducing gay marriage into the conversation and saying it is not the same as gun rights. For the sake of argument, and in the context of this "guns" thread, I am going to 100% agree.

Now, I am asking you if you are going to insist that jurisprudence does not exist, that 200 years of court interpretation, clarification, upholding laws and striking down statutes has no bearing on how today's court does and should consider the cases that come before it? Are you insisting that there is one way and only one way that the Second Amendment can be understood?

Cause, well, that's kinda what jurisprudence is and anyone thinking it shouldn't or doesn't play into court decisions has a very rudimentary understanding of this system of government.

Please see post #11959 by bbsam which started this line of thought .
Also see # 11962 & # 11971 .
None of these posts belong to Overpaid Union Thug .

 

[The Other Side]

Gotta love republican gun owners...

this is one time I would have wished this gun owner went nuts on his family and used his AR15 and killed everyone. Of course, we couldnt blame the gun, and we obviously would have to blame his PARENTS for raising an alcoholic animal, then providing him the very assault rifle he ended up being arrested with.

Charges include felony weapons charges as well as a danger to himself and others with the assault weapon.

No bail. Gun Taken away.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/sar...ested-on-assault-and-weapons-related-charges/

"Guns dont kill people, republicans kill people".

TOS.

 

[oldngray]

Over 500,000 Rounds of Ammo Were Fired by Gun Enthusiasts in the Nevada Desert — Guess How Many People Got Hurt

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...nevada-desert-guess-how-many-people-got-hurt/