In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Radical Extremists
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
When I explain you in my words, my topics get deleted or locked. So, here is an honest invitation for you to explain yourself in your own word. If you care to do so. Maybe your supporters, since it will be your own words, will not lock or delete my post.
In view of your belief in the US Constitution,:
#l How do you feel about LEO's compared to Peace Officers? Especially Peace Officers who have taken the oath of loyalty to the "promise keepers?"
#2 How do you view FFL holders?
#3 How do you view people who willingly do business with FFL holders?"
#4 How do you view the hundred of thousands of good citizens who grudgingly apply for CCW licenses so as to be able to carry concealed without being arrested?
#5 How would you react if you 5th grader came home from school with a loaded handgun he had purchased out of a vending machine?
#6 How would you feel if the violent murdered who had served his time got out of prison, stopped by Wal-mart on the way home, legally purchased a firearm, and then went to the home of his orginial victim and murdered the rest of the family?
#7 How would you feel when you learned that someone had legally sold a gun to the towns obvious nutcase and he was now legally walking around with it and acting crazy?
#8 How would you feel if you learned that Jose, an illegal alien who had a violent criminal record in Mexico, has legally bought a firearm at Walmart and was legally walking around with it?
#9 How would you feel if you learned that someone had placed a vending machine on the corner a block from you that legally sold loaded firearms to anybody who had the money to put into the machine?
All of the above would be legal if there were absolutely no gun laws in America as advocated by the radical, extremists here.
If you like the world I have described above, please tell me. But if you don't like that world, please also tell me.
In view of your belief in the US Constitution,:
#l How do you feel about LEO's compared to Peace Officers? Especially Peace Officers who have taken the oath of loyalty to the "promise keepers?"
#2 How do you view FFL holders?
#3 How do you view people who willingly do business with FFL holders?"
#4 How do you view the hundred of thousands of good citizens who grudgingly apply for CCW licenses so as to be able to carry concealed without being arrested?
#5 How would you react if you 5th grader came home from school with a loaded handgun he had purchased out of a vending machine?
#6 How would you feel if the violent murdered who had served his time got out of prison, stopped by Wal-mart on the way home, legally purchased a firearm, and then went to the home of his orginial victim and murdered the rest of the family?
#7 How would you feel when you learned that someone had legally sold a gun to the towns obvious nutcase and he was now legally walking around with it and acting crazy?
#8 How would you feel if you learned that Jose, an illegal alien who had a violent criminal record in Mexico, has legally bought a firearm at Walmart and was legally walking around with it?
#9 How would you feel if you learned that someone had placed a vending machine on the corner a block from you that legally sold loaded firearms to anybody who had the money to put into the machine?
All of the above would be legal if there were absolutely no gun laws in America as advocated by the radical, extremists here.
If you like the world I have described above, please tell me. But if you don't like that world, please also tell me.
Comments
When I explain you in my words, my topics get deleted or locked. So, here is an honest invitation for you to explain yourself in your own word. If you care to do so. Maybe your supporters, since it will be your own words, will not lock or delete my post.
In view of your belief in the US Constitution,:
The Constitution is the law of the land and was written in a manner the can not be mistaken or misconstrued. You once made a comment that the founding fathers should have written the 2nd amendment like the 1st, ie; "Congress shall make no law", but "Shall not be infringed" is pretty self explanatory.
#l How do you feel about LEO's compared to Peace Officers? Especially Peace Officers who have taken the oath of loyalty to the "promise keepers?"
I don't draw a distinction between the two, as far as I'm concerned they are one and the same. They are sworn to uphold the law, and by their own words to "protect and serve" the public.
#2 How do you view FFL holders?
They are engaged in the business of selling, buying, or shipping firearms. How else should I view them? I do not subscribe to the notion that they are evil agents of the federal goverment. It just happens to be what is required in order to be in the business. Wheather or not it's constitutional is a different matter. But also consider the agency that over see's FFL holders, the BATFE. An agency rife with abuse's since it's inception and obviously blind to it's own incompetence.
#3 How do you view people who willingly do business with FFL holders?"
Nothing more than customers.
#4 How do you view the hundred of thousands of good citizens who grudgingly apply for CCW licenses so as to be able to carry concealed without being arrested?
I view it as nothing more than a form of legalized extortion. Your paying for the priviledge of exercising a right. In some cases, depending on your state, your treated no better than a criminal being booked.
#5 How would you react if you 5th grader came home from school with a loaded handgun he had purchased out of a vending machine?
Responsible parenting would never allow it to happen. I don't need the goverment, regardless of what level, to tell me how to raise my kids. And a vending machine....get real Fox.
#6 How would you feel if the violent murdered who had served his time got out of prison, stopped by Wal-mart on the way home, legally purchased a firearm, and then went to the home of his orginial victim and murdered the rest of the family?
A convicted felon forfieted his right to own a firearm, as well as various other rights. The only way he could legally own a firearm again would be for a judge to grant a restoration of his rights. Gun rights and gun control are two seperate issues, they are not one and the same but all too often the distinction is blurred to the point of absurdity.
#7 How would you feel when you learned that someone had legally sold a gun to the towns obvious nutcase and he was now legally walking around with it and acting crazy?
Get rid of HIPA regulations concerning mental issues and make that information available during a NICS check.
#8 How would you feel if you learned that Jose, an illegal alien who had a violent criminal record in Mexico, has legally bought a firearm at Walmart and was legally walking around with it?
An illegal alien has no 2nd amendment rights, or any rights for that matter so he can not legally purchase a firearm. The fact that 30% of the federal prison population are illegals highlights the obvious and deliberate failure of the federal goverment to enforce it's own immigration laws and to secure the borders.
#9 How would you feel if you learned that someone had placed a vending machine on the corner a block from you that legally sold loaded firearms to anybody who had the money to put into the machine?
This is a patently ridiculous notion and makes you appear to be the radical extremist.
All of the above would be legal if there were absolutely no gun laws in America as advocated by the radical, extremists here.
Criminal penalties for crimes committed, to included forfeiture of one's rights to own a firearm, is one thing. Gun control is simply control and nothing more. The NRA helped usher in a long line of gun control laws starting with the 1932 Uniform Firearms act, the National Firearms Act, The Federal Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control Act and so on. And there isn't a single documentable report from either the DOJ or the FBI, regardless of what administration they operated under or agenda that was being pushed, that shows that any of it reduced crime rates at all. A closer reading of those acts shows that the real intent was simply to enact controls to restrict firearms ownership.
If you like the world I have described above, please tell me. But if you don't like that world, please also tell me.
Sniff...sniff...snivel...waah...
The mean people don''... don't..agr..agree with me. They don't buy into my government control world...an...an...and they make me feel real bad an...an...and look foolish whe...whe...when I try to tell them how my views are th...th...the right ones.
Som of'em eve...eve...even try to say we should pu...pu...punish bad men for doing bad things, if an when they do'em, instead of havin mom and dad government make a...a...a rule that says they will get arrested if they have'm, even if they don't do nothin bad.
Tha...tha...thats crazy an...an...an...scary an stuff.
The mean peo...peo...people won't bend to my way. Th...th...they keep talking bout extreme stuff like individual liberty and something called the Constitution...an...an..and they tell me my beliefs are against it.
It doe...dos...doesn't seem to ma...ma...matter how often I try, even try real, real hard to convince these meanies that my way of accepting government-control, an...an...and telling others that government control is good, is realistic and we gotta have mom and dad government protects us from the bad, bad man.
Hardly any of those meanies will answer my demands and questions, s...s...so, I am gonna call them extremists and try to marginalize or demonize them.
If I can, I will tell on that mean ol' el-tee guy about what he believes. He took an oath or a 'promise' to enforce all the laws an..an... and he says he don't enforce some of'em cause a that thing called the Constitution and cause a something called discretion.
I am looking for my bat and ball and if I can find them, I am gonna take'm an go home an tell my mommy on you meanies.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
When I explain you in my words, my topics get deleted or locked. So, here is an honest invitation for you to explain yourself in your own word. If you care to do so. Maybe your supporters, since it will be your own words, will not lock or delete my post.
In view of your belief in the US Constitution,:
The Constitution is the law of the land and was written in a manner the can not be mistaken or misconstrued. You once made a comment that the founding fathers should have written the 2nd amendment like the 1st, ie; "Congress shall make no law", but "Shall not be infringed" is pretty self explanatory.
#l How do you feel about LEO's compared to Peace Officers? Especially Peace Officers who have taken the oath of loyalty to the "promise keepers?"
I don't draw a distinction between the two, as far as I'm concerned they are one and the same. They are sworn to uphold the law, and by their own words to "protect and serve" the public.
#2 How do you view FFL holders?
They are engaged in the business of selling, buying, or shipping firearms. How else should I view them? I do not subscribe to the notion that they are evil agents of the federal goverment. It just happens to be what is required in order to be in the business. Wheather or not it's constitutional is a different matter. But also consider the agency that over see's FFL holders, the BATFE. An agency rife with abuse's since it's inception and obviously blind to it's own incompetence.
#3 How do you view people who willingly do business with FFL holders?"
Nothing more than customers.
#4 How do you view the hundred of thousands of good citizens who grudgingly apply for CCW licenses so as to be able to carry concealed without being arrested?
I view it as nothing more than a form of legalized extortion. Your paying for the priviledge of exercising a right. In some cases, depending on your state, your treated no better than a criminal being booked.
#5 How would you react if you 5th grader came home from school with a loaded handgun he had purchased out of a vending machine?
Responsible parenting would never allow it to happen. I don't need the goverment, regardless of what level, to tell me how to raise my kids. And a vending machine....get real Fox.
#6 How would you feel if the violent murdered who had served his time got out of prison, stopped by Wal-mart on the way home, legally purchased a firearm, and then went to the home of his orginial victim and murdered the rest of the family?
A convicted felon forfieted his right to own a firearm, as well as various other rights. The only way he could legally own a firearm again would be for a judge to grant a restoration of his rights. Gun rights and gun control are two seperate issues, they are not one and the same but all too often the distinction is blurred to the point of absurdity.
#7 How would you feel when you learned that someone had legally sold a gun to the towns obvious nutcase and he was now legally walking around with it and acting crazy?
Get rid of HIPA regulations concerning mental issues and make that information available during a NICS check.
#8 How would you feel if you learned that Jose, an illegal alien who had a violent criminal record in Mexico, has legally bought a firearm at Walmart and was legally walking around with it?
An illegal alien has no 2nd amendment rights, or any rights for that matter so he can not legally purchase a firearm. The fact that 30% of the federal prison population are illegals highlights the obvious and deliberate failure of the federal goverment to enforce it's own immigration laws and to secure the borders.
#9 How would you feel if you learned that someone had placed a vending machine on the corner a block from you that legally sold loaded firearms to anybody who had the money to put into the machine?
This is a patently ridiculous notion and makes you appear to be the radical extremist.
All of the above would be legal if there were absolutely no gun laws in America as advocated by the radical, extremists here.
Criminal penalties for crimes committed, to included forfeiture of one's rights to own a firearm, is one thing. Gun control is simply control and nothing more. The NRA helped usher in a long line of gun control laws starting with the 1932 Uniform Firearms act, the National Firearms Act, The Federal Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control Act and so on. And there isn't a single documentable report from either the DOJ or the FBI, regardless of what administration they operated under or agenda that was being pushed, that shows that any of it reduced crime rates at all. A closer reading of those acts shows that the real intent was simply to enact controls to restrict firearms ownership.
If you like the world I have described above, please tell me. But if you don't like that world, please also tell me.
Agree with wifretrained, for the most part.
The violent murderer who was paroled in this scenario should have long ago turned into fertilizer. End of arguement. Again, the liberal do gooders fault.
Ditto the mental heath issue thing. Recinding the HIPA restrictions would be a step, but the re-installation of state mental hospitals
would be better. The Arizona and Virginia Tech shooters passed the NICS and obviously lied on the 4473 about their mental state. Thank you liberal do-gooders.
Ditto the illegal situation.
The problem is not "radical extremists", rather "do-gooder liberals".
Oh, and the gun vending machines? yeah, right.
Not only are tr's arguments ridiculous, but also disingenuous.
As I said in the other thread, sad that his participation here has been reduced to trolling.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Would it be brand specific, like Coke and Pepsi machines? I get extremely agitated when the Pepsi machine reads "SOLD OUT" and I'm forced to drink Dr. Pepper.....I'd come unglued if the Kimber machine was sold out and I had to buy a Glock [V]
One of my kids comes home with a cheap * Jennings gonna get a beating.[;)]
I was really looking forward to a more in-depth discussion of firearms vending machines....too bad [V]
I'm wondering if you'd be able to tilt and beat on them until a gun comes out?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Hey fox, do you only include a mag or cylinder load, or do we get the whole box?
I'm curious as to how these handgun vending machines work.
Would it be brand specific, like Coke and Pepsi machines? I get extremely agitated when the Pepsi machine reads "SOLD OUT" and I'm forced to drink Dr. Pepper.....I'd come unglued if the Kimber machine was sold out and I had to buy a Glock [V]
+100
Would the machine have a third option for those whose systems are Glock intolerant?[:o)]
COB
I'm curious as to how these handgun vending machines work.
Would it be brand specific, like Coke and Pepsi machines? I get extremely agitated when the Pepsi machine reads "SOLD OUT" and I'm forced to drink Dr. Pepper.....I'd come unglued if the Kimber machine was sold out and I had to buy a Glock [V]
it would have to be a GLOCK dispensing machine.. cause you know how some vending machines dont work most of the time BUT a Glock vending machine would always dispense[:0][:0][}:)]
quote: In some parts of Africa, a Soviet-designed AK-47 assault rifle, coveted for its simplicity and firepower, can be purchased for as little as $6, or traded for a chicken or sack of grain.
Yes you would still have high quality more expensive firearms but you would also have companies build cheap $10 junk and mass market them,,anybody remember the so called Saturday Night Special. It would not have to be vending machines,,that is an example to the extreme that I use myself but it is an extreme,,How about just setting up on the corner by the local middle school or in a Kiosk in the mall and sell to whom ever walks by with the cash, no matter of age or Background,,I mean if there are no laws you will not have any forms to fill out,,or have a background call in,,so any Mental case or Felon can buy .
Your concerns and the government's fears, concerns, desires notwithstanding.
Second, people can refuse to sell to anyone if they so chose, whether a vending machine owner/operator, a gun show seller or any other person wishing to make a sale.
There is no mandate to sell, trade or gift any product or object to another person, in a free society.
Third, if a person commits a bad-act, with a firearm or without, mental case, felon, depressed, angry, coldly-deliberate or otherwise, a specific punishment or sanction for the commission of that individual bad-act must be levied against the individual committing it.
Why some of you people just can't wrap your minds around that concept is amazing to me, each and every time it crops up...and it crops up regularly.
Founding principles, individual liberty and constitutionally-limited government vs. collectivist nanny-state and fear based society ruled by unconstitutional prior restraint.
Oh my....
if you have ZERO gun laws there very well could be guns in vending machines, What would prevent it ?? where there are no laws, guns are always cheap.
quote: In some parts of Africa, a Soviet-designed AK-47 assault rifle, coveted for its simplicity and firepower, can be purchased for as little as $6, or traded for a chicken or sack of grain.
Yes you would still have high quality more expensive firearms but you would also have companies build cheap $10 junk and mass market them,,anybody remember the so called Saturday Night Special. It would not have to be vending machines,,that is an example to the extreme that I use myself but it is an extreme,,How about just setting up on the corner by the local middle school or in a Kiosk in the mall and sell to whom ever walks by with the cash, no matter of age or Background,,I mean if there are no laws you will not have any forms to fill out,,or have a background call in,,so any Mental case or Felon can buy .
I have faced this argument a few times in my life and I always ask just one question; Can you name one law that works.
you are 100% correct in the law but 100% wrong in your interpertation,,it says the right to keep and bear arms,,it does not say the right to keep and bear firearms,,I know you hate courts but this is one of those little pesky things that has already been determend in one. An arm could be a sword, A knife ,or evn black powder,,it was considered ARMS all the way back to the Knights on horses carrying long sticks,,Nothing in the 2nd gives you the right to own any FIREARM you chose
quote:Second, people can refuse to sell to anyone if they so chose, whether a vending machine owner/operator, a gun show seller or any other person wishing to make a sale.
You again are 100% right,,there will be many gun dealers with morals and control who they sell to,,but without laws there will be many many more who just dont care and will sell to anyone,,you have them no when its illegal,,they would come out of the wood works like cockroaches if it was made legal
quote:Third, if a person commits a bad-act, with a firearm or without, mental case, felon, depressed, angry, coldly-deliberate or otherwise, a specific punishment or sanction for the commission of that individual bad-act must be levied against the individual committing it.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBES IS A LAW you can not punish or sanction someone for breaking a law that does not exist,,you just defeated your own arguement
you are 100% correct in the law but 100% wrong in your interpertation,,it says the right to keep and bear arms,,it does not say the right to keep and bear firearms.....An arm could be a sword, A knife ,or evn black powder
Exactly....because we all know how fiercely the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord fought to keep their swords and pocketknives.
OK I'll bite on your argument,,,
Name the Federal Regulations against black powder muskets,,thats what they were fighting with and swords and muskets were the ARMS of the time
OK I'll bite on your argument,,,
Name the Federal Regulations against black powder muskets,,thats what they were fighting with and swords and muskets were the ARMS of the time
and the methods of communication at the time were word of mouth and print.
Are you suggesting that the freedom of speech only applies to those mediums as well?
Are you suggesting that the freedom of speech only applies to those mediums as well?
Not at all,thats compairing apples to oranges but I will Bite and use your example,,All Speech is not free,,you cant yell fire in a crowd or slander someone with malice,,there are restrictions on the first amendment just as their are restrictions on the second
"Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable." By Don McManus
quote:First, Amendment II is textually a prohibition on government from infringing on a citizens RKBA
you are 100% correct in the law but 100% wrong in your interpertation,,it says the right to keep and bear arms,,it does not say the right to keep and bear firearms,,I know you hate courts but this is one of those little pesky things that has already been determend in one. An arm could be a sword, A knife ,or evn black powder,,it was considered ARMS all the way back to the Knights on horses carrying long sticks,,Nothing in the 2nd gives you the right to own any FIREARM you chose
quote:Second, people can refuse to sell to anyone if they so chose, whether a vending machine owner/operator, a gun show seller or any other person wishing to make a sale.
You again are 100% right,,there will be many gun dealers with morals and control who they sell to,,but without laws there will be many many more who just dont care and will sell to anyone,,you have them no when its illegal,,they would come out of the wood works like cockroaches if it was made legal
quote:Third, if a person commits a bad-act, with a firearm or without, mental case, felon, depressed, angry, coldly-deliberate or otherwise, a specific punishment or sanction for the commission of that individual bad-act must be levied against the individual committing it.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBES IS A LAW you can not punish or sanction someone for breaking a law that does not exist,,you just defeated your own arguement
Rarely have I seen such an off-base reply due to a gross lack of understanding of basic stuff.
You say... quote:you are 100% correct in the law but 100% wrong in your interpertation,,it says the right to keep and bear arms,,it does not say the right to keep and bear firearms,,I know you hate courts but this is one of those little pesky things that has already been determend in one. An arm could be a sword, A knife ,or evn black powder,,it was considered ARMS all the way back to the Knights on horses carrying long sticks,,Nothing in the 2nd gives you the right to own any FIREARM you choseFirst, the courts are not empowered or authorized by the Constitution to modify the Constitution.
There is an enumerated Amendment Process that is the only method to do so. Anything else is unconstitutional judicial fiat and such is null and void in the eyes of the Constitution.
As for the rest of your 'point', what the hell do you think 'arms' include? Do you think the founders were referring to sticks, knives and swords alone and excluding firearms?
Did the militia fall out with rocks and dirt-clods? Did we fight the Brits with blades of grass and knives? Did the Brits attempt to confiscate our sticks and dirt, or, rather, firearms, ammunition, powder and artillery?
Unbelievable...
The enumeration of this fundamental right to keep and bear arms absolutely prohibits government from infringing on that right and on any choice of firearm I make, period. Get over it and accept it.
In addition, our rights concerning firearms and Amendment II are prima facie.
The issue revolves around the lynch-pin text in Amendment II and that text that puts an absolute lie to all gun control...the enumerated fundamental 'right' to keep and bear arms of our citizens "shall not be infringed".
You go on to state... quote:You again are 100% right,,there will be many gun dealers with morals and control who they sell to,,but without laws there will be many many more who just dont care and will sell to anyone,,you have them no when its illegal,,they would come out of the wood works like cockroaches if it was made legal
To that I reply, yeah, so what? That leads directly to my third point in my earlier post that you quoted...
You go on to what you strangely seem to think is some grand 'gotcha moment' when you say... quote:THIS IS THE BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBES IS A LAW[/b] you can not punish or sanction someone for breaking a law that does not exist,,you just defeated your own arguementSeriously, WTH are you babbling about?
I clearly tied my comment (seen in the following quote), not to gun-control and/or unconstitutional firearms prior restraint, but to the commission of a 'bad-act' whether involving a firearm or not.quote:Third, if a person commits a bad-act, with a firearm or without, mental case, felon, depressed, angry, coldly-deliberate or otherwise, a specific punishment or sanction for the commission of that individual bad-act must be levied against the individual committing it.Your lack of cognitive reasoning and reading comprehension skills is truly disturbing.
Allow me to try to frame this 'oh so difficult' concept yet again. If there were a crayon-font, I'd use it here...
Gun-control laws are unconstitutional and they are not a malum in se act (bad in and of themselves), e.g. there is no 'bad-act' committed by simply possessing, purchasing or carrying a firearm.
A 'bad- act' would be something like, oh, say, rape, child molestation, kidnapping, unjustified homicide, aggravated assault, threatening, robbery, etc....
These acts are bad regardless of whether a gun is present or used in the commission.
The 'gun' being present does not create a 'bad-act', the individual committing the bad-act is to be the focus, not the inanimate object that may or may not be possessed or used.
If you murder someone with a gun, ice-pick, broken stick, choke someone to death with a handful of horse-schite, or otherwise unlawfully take the life, the 'bad-act' is murder.
Laws designed to punish 'bad-acts'such as rape or murder are not in question, now are they?
I do not, did not and will not advocate punishing someone for an unconstitutional firearm 'law' that is prohibited to government by the enumeration of our fundamental RKBA in Amendment II.
My 'argument' is not destroyed by your inability to grasp these very, very simple concepts that are DIRECTLY in-line with the Constitution, Amendment II and the principles of our founding.
Got it?
"Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable."
This answered the question better than I ever could, thanks.
This was posted by a member here but I can't remember who. But none the less it's very good.
"Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable."
One of my more lucid moments.[:I]
Brad Steele
there is nothing wrong with my reading skill,,your debating skills are the problem,you cant argue the facts without personal attacks,,again you said
quote:if a person commits a bad-act, with a firearm or without, mental case, felon, depressed, angry, coldly-deliberate or otherwise, a specific punishment or sanction for the commission of that individual bad-act must be levied against the individual committing it.
You cant do this without laws,,so you are admitting in your argument there has to be gun laws to have a civil society,,,they are your words not mine..
quote:Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable
I can C&P just as many against your argument but for this debate,,I will except it,,That still does not excuse Slander of another or at least a dozen other instances where you do not have free speech if it affects another person,,your free speech does not cancel out there rights..
Your repeating of the above statement is proof positive that you lack in reading comprehension and cognitive reasoning.
Not a personal attack, it was and is a statement of fact, established by your own words.
I categorically stated that 'gun-laws' are unconstitutional and I reject them. I coupled that with a detailed description of a 'bad-act', which is what punishment must be geared to.
You are off-base and flat wrong. In addition, you fail to grasp a simple concept as provided.
That is all.
quote:ou cant do this without laws,,so you are admitting in your argument there has to be gun laws to have a civil society,,,there were your words not mine..First, I am not debating. I am stating my assessments and outlining the liberty position.
Your repeating of the above statement is proof positive that you lack in reading comprehension and cognitive reasoning.
Not a personal attack, it was and is a statement of fact, established by your own words.
I categorically stated that 'gun-laws' are unconstitutional and I reject them. I coupled that with a detailed description of a 'bad-act', which is what punishment must be geared to.
You are off-base and flat wrong. In addition, you fail to grasp a simple concept as provided.
That is all.
Lt,
can't you EVER answer a poster who disagrees with you WITHOUT a personal attack? Why is everything personal to you? "Not a personal attack" my foot. Come on, fella, have a conversation, not a brawl.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:ou cant do this without laws,,so you are admitting in your argument there has to be gun laws to have a civil society,,,there were your words not mine..First, I am not debating. I am stating my assessments and outlining the liberty position.
Your repeating of the above statement is proof positive that you lack in reading comprehension and cognitive reasoning.
Not a personal attack, it was and is a statement of fact, established by your own words.
I categorically stated that 'gun-laws' are unconstitutional and I reject them. I coupled that with a detailed description of a 'bad-act', which is what punishment must be geared to.
You are off-base and flat wrong. In addition, you fail to grasp a simple concept as provided.
That is all.
Lt,
can't you EVER answer a poster who disagrees with you WITHOUT a personal attack? Why is everything personal to you? "Not a personal attack" my foot. Come on, fella, have a conversation, not a brawl.
The comment of lacking cognitive reasoning and reading comprehension is a statement of fact.
I make plenty of attacks when it suits me and it suits me often. What I post and how I post it is my choice, but I do appreciate your criticism.
A man who demonstrates he cannot read a clearly written series of sentences and subsequently grasp a simple concept outlined in those sentences factually lacks reasoning and reading comprehension.
Are you afflicted with the same problems?
Calling you an idiot would be a personal attack.
quote:Originally posted by RTKBA
This was posted by a member here but I can't remember who. But none the less it's very good.
"Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable."
One of my more lucid moments.[:I]
I hope you have many more lucid moments. It's a very good counter argument and I have used it in several good debates. Thanks
But what gives you the right to demand punishment,,if they have broken no laws,,you keep going back and contradicting yourself,,We are going to punish a felon or nut case or whomever for buying a gun but there is no laws to keep him from buying it,,,You cant have it both ways,,Either there are no laws and every nut in the world can buy whatever they want and do as they please with no recourse,or you have laws to stop them from it and if they break that law they can be punished,,,your entire arguement is false and you keep talking in circles. The only way you can defend it is to attack the other person,,Most people who stoop down to that level knows their argument will not hold water and its the only recourse they have
quote:categorically stated that 'gun-laws' are unconstitutional and I reject them. I coupled that with a detailed description of a 'bad-act', which is what punishment must be geared to.
But what gives you the right to demand punishment,,if they have broken no laws,,you keep going back and contradicting yourself,,We are going to punish a felon or nut case or whomever for buying a gun but there is no laws to keep him from buying it,,,You cant have it both ways,,Either there are no laws and every nut in the world can buy whatever they want and do as they please with no recourse,or you have laws to stop them from it and if they break that law they can be punished,,,your entire arguement is false and you keep talking in circles. The only way you can defend it is to attack the other person,,Most people who stoop down to that level knows their argument will not hold water and its the only recourse they have
You are clearly beyond help. Have a good evening.
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
Firearms restraints have never stopped a crime, in fact the opposite is is more the case.....
I want the vending machine concession at the airport....
Don
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
I agree completly,,Those laws wee never in debate,,the question is or was, what about when those people get out of prison,,most of them will not be in for life,,they are not going to give you life for theft or assault,,they cant afford to put everyone convicted of a crime for life,,you cant take them out back and shoot them that is against another amendment, So should there be a law keeping these people from buying/opwning a firearm ???
quote:It's really not that hard, if you rape, murder, burgle, bugger or assault another person, you get punished for that "bad act".
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
I agree completly,,Those laws wee never in debate,,the question is or was, what about when those people get out of prison,,most of them will not be in for life,,they are not going to give you life for theft or assault,,they cant afford to put everyone convicted of a crime for life,,you cant take them out back and shoot them that is against another amendment, So should there be a law keeping these people from buying/opwning a firearm ???
Amazing, on several levels.
Now he agrees and switches tactics, still completely missing the point about 'prior restraint' vs. specific punishment for the commission of a specific 'bad-act'.
Just another dense collectivist-gerbil, gnawing away at the foundations of the Republic, happily ignorant of the principles of our founding and of liberty.
It is what it is...
quote:Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable
I can C&P just as many against your argument but for this debate,,I will except it,,That still does not excuse Slander of another or at least a dozen other instances where you do not have free speech if it affects another person,,your free speech does not cancel out there rights..
I don't think you are seeing what the argument actually is, sharpshooter. Just as free speech does not bestow the right to slander, the 2nd does not bestow the right to injure. Restrictions on free speech in the examples you give only apply when a wrong has been committed. Restrictions on bearing arms apply before a wrong has been committed.
There are a few cases where the right to peaceably assemble have been denied, and only here can you draw a partial comparison. The problem is, however, that these denials consider disruptions to others via traffic disruption, private property access, etc. There is no such disruption to the rights of others caused by an individual bearing a firearm.
Brad Steele
quote:It's really not that hard, if you rape, murder, burgle, bugger or assault another person, you get punished for that "bad act".
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
I agree completly,,Those laws wee never in debate,,the question is or was, what about when those people get out of prison,,most of them will not be in for life,,they are not going to give you life for theft or assault,,they cant afford to put everyone convicted of a crime for life,,you cant take them out back and shoot them that is against another amendment, So should there be a law keeping these people from buying/opwning a firearm ???
To directly answer your question: No, there should be no such restrictive laws.
1. The obvious contradiction of the basic human right codified in Amendment II should be sufficient for all to understand why these laws cannot exist. Each and every one of contributes the dilution of the protections of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not uniquely disparaged, but it is probably the most egregiously disparaged.
2. From a practical standpoint, the restrictions on post-incarceration felons places these individuals at a higher level of personal risk than the average population. Denying these people the basic human right of self defense and of defense of their families ensures that they remain on the outside of society looking in. The neighborhoods in which these people are typically forced to live for economic and other societal issues are typically neighborhoods where self protection is more important than elsewhere. I wouldn't live there absent a self-defense weapon, and I would not ask anyone else to live there either.
3. The societal insistence that ex-felons carry that label permanently creates a self-perpetuating criminal class. The labelling and denial of basic rights ensures that full integration into society will never occur. Many may thump their chests and insist that they are only getting what they deserve, but the actual result is that permanent labelling creates a permanent problem. Those that pose an obvious danger need to be sequestered and kept out of society. Those that are deemed acceptable to re-enter society should do so and should fully re-enter. Our fear of potential actions is no excuse for relegating a block of our fellow citizens to a life in the shadows. It is inherently wrong on a human level, and it is a direct violation of basic human rights.
Brad Steele
quote:First, Amendment II is textually a prohibition on government from infringing on a citizens RKBA
you are 100% correct in the law but 100% wrong in your interpertation,,it says the right to keep and bear arms,,it does not say the right to keep and bear firearms,,I know you hate courts but this is one of those little pesky things that has already been determend in one. An arm could be a sword, A knife ,or evn black powder,,it was considered ARMS all the way back to the Knights on horses carrying long sticks,,Nothing in the 2nd gives you the right to own any FIREARM you chose
quote:Second, people can refuse to sell to anyone if they so chose, whether a vending machine owner/operator, a gun show seller or any other person wishing to make a sale.
You again are 100% right,,there will be many gun dealers with morals and control who they sell to,,but without laws there will be many many more who just dont care and will sell to anyone,,you have them no when its illegal,,they would come out of the wood works like cockroaches if it was made legal
quote:Third, if a person commits a bad-act, with a firearm or without, mental case, felon, depressed, angry, coldly-deliberate or otherwise, a specific punishment or sanction for the commission of that individual bad-act must be levied against the individual committing it.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBES IS A LAW you can not punish or sanction someone for breaking a law that does not exist,,you just defeated your own arguement
Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment!!!
Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!![;)]
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
Your a politician....no wonder you don't get it....
Why should I, as a law abiding citizen, have to prove my innocence to anybody?
Don