(08-29-2015 08:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:32 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:24 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:16 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:09 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Read much? The survey above described how criminals get their weapons. They get them from other criminals.

Uh... Ok, so criminals just manufacture guns in their asses... Ok. Let's go with that. ...over time, the argument still stands. Register your toys or have them removed. Either legally or from "your cold dead hands" either way, I'm good with that. Eventually all illegal guns will be confiscated. Unless the pro gun zealots actually want to protect their freedoms from the mentally ill.

So what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand.

"Well regulated" meant well practiced and well versed. Perhaps actually take the time to read what Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers, instead of just spewing your uneducated, libtard talking points.

I love how this was conveniently ignored.

(08-30-2015 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:32 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand.

What part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"?

All rights come with inherit limitations. The right to vote, has age limits. The right of free speech does not include to right to incite a riot or yell fire in a crowded theater.

By your reasoning, you should be suing the gun industry for requiring you to pay money I order to get your gun.

(08-31-2015 07:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:32 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:24 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:16 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  Uh... Ok, so criminals just manufacture guns in their asses... Ok. Let's go with that. ...over time, the argument still stands. Register your toys or have them removed. Either legally or from "your cold dead hands" either way, I'm good with that. Eventually all illegal guns will be confiscated. Unless the pro gun zealots actually want to protect their freedoms from the mentally ill.

So what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand.

"Well regulated" meant well practiced and well versed. Perhaps actually take the time to read what Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers, instead of just spewing your uneducated, libtard talking points.

I love how this was conveniently ignored.

This has been ignored because I don't waste my time arguing with someone who redefines a word's meaning to suit his argument. And if you want to go with that definition, then by all means, let's not allow gun ownership until they have proven to be "well practiced and well versed" in the use and safe storage of their guns.

And as far as spewing "talking points"... If you want to make up insulting words to call me, make up your own instead of relying on the crafty right wing websites. You couldn't be more predicable if you tried.

(08-31-2015 07:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:32 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:24 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:16 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  Uh... Ok, so criminals just manufacture guns in their asses... Ok. Let's go with that. ...over time, the argument still stands. Register your toys or have them removed. Either legally or from "your cold dead hands" either way, I'm good with that. Eventually all illegal guns will be confiscated. Unless the pro gun zealots actually want to protect their freedoms from the mentally ill.

So what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand.

"Well regulated" meant well practiced and well versed. Perhaps actually take the time to read what Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers, instead of just spewing your uneducated, libtard talking points.

I love how this was conveniently ignored.

Because most likely she has no clue what you're talking about.

(08-30-2015 06:15 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:04 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:01 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Explain what you mean by "responsible gun ownership ". ??

If that is directed towards me.... Simple. Take responsibility for your ******* toys!

By doing what things?

The same way we take responsibility for cars and personal real property; liability insurance and registration.

And before you go there, I will not argue with the "but infringement" bull****. Requiring insurance payments is no different than the gun store owner demanding payment for you to walk out of the door with your "rights" or paying sales tax on the purchase.

But driving a vehicle is not a right. Nor is owning property ??

If someone steals my property (firearm ) from my me,... The only law that has been broken is the grand larceny of my firearm ,.. Correct?!

(08-31-2015 08:41 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  The same way we take responsibility for cars and personal real property; liability insurance and registration.

Then do it.

Quote:Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it. Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games.

And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want!

Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

I don't buy the strict constitutionalist viewpoint that so many tend to champion as if they truly believe it, even if I do agree with the constitutional protection of the right to own firearms. Mainly because not a single person believes all forms of arms should be legal to citizens, and therefore all discussion exists on the understanding that the government should limit our rights to bear arms. The disagreement is simply one of a relative sense.

(08-31-2015 09:01 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  But driving a vehicle is not a right. Nor is owning property ??

If someone steals my property (firearm ) from my me,... The only law that has been broken is the grand larceny of my firearm ,.. Correct?!

Correct. And that is why laws need to be changed.

Now, if you were REALLY responsible for your firearm, you should either report it lost or stolen, same as with a car.

Requiring insurance doesn't "infringe" of your right to own the gun, it simply is a means of making gun owners responsible.

I have a right to vote, but I still have to pay for my id and gas to get to the polling station. If I submit an absentee ballot, I have to pay for the postage. So, again, all rights come with limitations and personal responsibility.

(08-31-2015 08:29 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:32 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand.

What part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"?

All rights come with inherit limitations. The right to vote, has age limits. The right of free speech does not include to right to incite a riot or yell fire in a crowded theater.

The right to bear arms comes with limitations. I can't use my gun to murder you. So what part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"? I'm asking that as an English grammar and syntax question.

Quote:By your reasoning, you should be suing the gun industry for requiring you to pay money I order to get your gun.

What an idiotic statement. Having a right to bear arms does not mean in any way, shape, or form having the right to require other people to pay for those arms.

I'm not certain as to what your point is but I'll continue to play along.

I have had a pistol stolen from my vehicle before. Said vehicle was irked on my private property. I notified the county Sheriff.

Each year for the past eight years , I am sent a NICS form to fill out. My weapon is listed on a National Database. Hopefully Zi will recover that pistol one day. But believe me, it is put there and some punk is toting it around. But I've done my part.

(08-31-2015 08:29 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:32 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand.

What part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"?

All rights come with inherit limitations. The right to vote, has age limits. The right of free speech does not include to right to incite a riot or yell fire in a crowded theater.

The right to bear arms comes with limitations. I can't use my gun to murder you. So what part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"? I'm asking that as an English grammar and syntax question.

Quote:By your reasoning, you should be suing the gun industry for requiring you to pay money I order to get your gun.

What an idiotic statement. Having a right to bear arms does not mean in any way, shape, or form having the right to require other people to pay for those arms.

(08-31-2015 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm asking that as an English grammar and syntax question.

(08-31-2015 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:29 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:32 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand.

What part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"?

All rights come with inherit limitations. The right to vote, has age limits. The right of free speech does not include to right to incite a riot or yell fire in a crowded theater.

The right to bear arms comes with limitations. I can't use my gun to murder you. So what part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"? I'm asking that as an English grammar and syntax question.

Quote:By your reasoning, you should be suing the gun industry for requiring you to pay money I order to get your gun.

What an idiotic statement. Having a right to bear arms does not mean in any way, shape, or form having the right to require other people to pay for those arms.

By you CAN use your gun to murder me or anyone near you. And your right to keep and bear arms is paid for every day with the lives of the people that are killed by guns... errrr people with guns.

And I don't care to explain English syntax to you. I do not disagree that there are many ways to interpret the second amendment. But, if you care about it, you need to reel in your people. Because the killing will eventually get to the point that it will be repealed all together. I believe in the 2nd. But at this point, I couldn't care less if it is repealed. When the only answer gun worshipers can offer is "more guns, more guns, more guns," you simply are not serious about addressing the issue, and in the long run, that will hurt your cause.

So, I am done discussing this issue here. I've stated my opinion and I stand by it. Now, if you would like to offer real ideas, I'm all ears.

(08-31-2015 09:29 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  I'm not certain as to what your point is but I'll continue to play along.

I have had a pistol stolen from my vehicle before. Said vehicle was irked on my private property. I notified the county Sheriff.

Each year for the past eight years , I am sent a NICS form to fill out. My weapon is listed on a National Database. Hopefully Zi will recover that pistol one day. But believe me, it is put there and some punk is toting it around. But I've done my part.

I'm all for that! Really. Now, we should make that a national law. Let's get on it!

(08-31-2015 09:05 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:41 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  The same way we take responsibility for cars and personal real property; liability insurance and registration.

Then do it.

Quote:Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it. Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games.

And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want!

Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

We're working on it.

(08-31-2015 09:58 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:29 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  I'm not certain as to what your point is but I'll continue to play along.

I have had a pistol stolen from my vehicle before. Said vehicle was irked on my private property. I notified the county Sheriff.

Each year for the past eight years , I am sent a NICS form to fill out. My weapon is listed on a National Database. Hopefully Zi will recover that pistol one day. But believe me, it is put there and some punk is toting it around. But I've done my part.

I'm all for that! Really. Now, we should make that a national law. Let's get on it!

It's already out there!! What more do you want? Come on McFly... hello !

(08-31-2015 09:57 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  And I don't care to explain English syntax to you.

Good decision on your part, since you'd lose that discussion.

(08-31-2015 09:57 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:29 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:32 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand.

What part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"?

All rights come with inherit limitations. The right to vote, has age limits. The right of free speech does not include to right to incite a riot or yell fire in a crowded theater.

The right to bear arms comes with limitations. I can't use my gun to murder you. So what part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"? I'm asking that as an English grammar and syntax question.

Quote:By your reasoning, you should be suing the gun industry for requiring you to pay money I order to get your gun.

What an idiotic statement. Having a right to bear arms does not mean in any way, shape, or form having the right to require other people to pay for those arms.

By you CAN use your gun to murder me or anyone near you. And your right to keep and bear arms is paid for every day with the lives of the people that are killed by guns... errrr people with guns.

And I don't care to explain English syntax to you. I do not disagree that there are many ways to interpret the second amendment. But, if you care about it, you need to reel in your people. Because the killing will eventually get to the point that it will be repealed all together. I believe in the 2nd. But at this point, I couldn't care less if it is repealed. When the only answer gun worshipers can offer is "more guns, more guns, more guns," you simply are not serious about addressing the issue, and in the long run, that will hurt your cause.

So, I am done discussing this issue here. I've stated my opinion and I stand by it. Now, if you would like to offer real ideas, I'm all ears.

yep, clueless.

(08-31-2015 10:16 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:57 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:29 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"?

All rights come with inherit limitations. The right to vote, has age limits. The right of free speech does not include to right to incite a riot or yell fire in a crowded theater.

The right to bear arms comes with limitations. I can't use my gun to murder you. So what part of "well-regulated" applies to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed"? I'm asking that as an English grammar and syntax question.

Quote:By your reasoning, you should be suing the gun industry for requiring you to pay money I order to get your gun.

What an idiotic statement. Having a right to bear arms does not mean in any way, shape, or form having the right to require other people to pay for those arms.

By you CAN use your gun to murder me or anyone near you. And your right to keep and bear arms is paid for every day with the lives of the people that are killed by guns... errrr people with guns.

And I don't care to explain English syntax to you. I do not disagree that there are many ways to interpret the second amendment. But, if you care about it, you need to reel in your people. Because the killing will eventually get to the point that it will be repealed all together. I believe in the 2nd. But at this point, I couldn't care less if it is repealed. When the only answer gun worshipers can offer is "more guns, more guns, more guns," you simply are not serious about addressing the issue, and in the long run, that will hurt your cause.

So, I am done discussing this issue here. I've stated my opinion and I stand by it. Now, if you would like to offer real ideas, I'm all ears.

yep, clueless.

Yep, since you have offered no ideas, it would appear you are.