More guns = More death? (1 Viewer)

[jaeger19]

A woman has an abortion and it’s just an “embryo” lol. Kick a woman in the stomach and cause her a miscarriage and it’s murder for the same” embryo”. People are in prison for murder for causing a miscarriage like that. Murder is defined as…..the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Notice the key word human being not zygote or embryo.

People like you live a life of lies and hypocrisy. You accuse others of killing animals yet you eat dead animals. You virtue signal about dead babies killed with guns yet you support the killing of babies via abortion. Your comrades support illegal immigration but how dare they bus those illegals to their communities. No guns for civilians to defend themselves but they can afford armed security 24/7. You just aren’t very good people is all. You don’t have empathy. You lack any ability to think critically. And you are amongst the biggest hypocrites walking the planet. It’s sad.

Just to point out..you aren't thinking critically either.

 

[Glitch]

It is not the same thing. But regulations surrounding autos and their use are analogous to guns and their use.

If they were analogous there would be an enumerated right within the US Constitution that protects our right to own and operate a motorized vehicle. Since it is a well established fact that you do not believe anyone has any rights, I can understand your confusion. Regardless of whether you happen to agree or not, people are born with certain inherent rights, and one of those enumerated rights is to keep and bear arms - without being infringed by government restrictions or limitations.

When you can find a similar enumeration of an inherent right in the US Constitution for automobiles then and only then would vehicles be analogous with arms. Otherwise it isn't even a close analogy because you are incapable of distinguishing between a constitutionally protected right and a government bestowed privilege.

 

[Glitch]

I've told you before that I have no problem with licensing requirements for using a gun in public. Such as the hunting requirements and concealed carry requirements in my own state. Just so long as they are cheap and on a shall-issue basis.

Then, when we talk about using a gun on private property, that's a different matter.

It's even more of a different matter when we talk about mere ownership and possession.

But you like to conflate all those disparate aspects.

You may not give a shit about the US Constitution and the rights it protects, but that is entirely you and nobody else. I certainly would never tolerate any licensing or background requirements, and I will carry my firearms any damn way I please. Just because you want to piss all over the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments does not mean you will have any support from real Americans. You can only count on the support of anti-American leftist filth who want to utterly destroy the rights of every American, just like you.

 

[Glitch]

The question is why? Is it because you're told to due to some affinity with a political party? You haven't been able to rationalize this advocacy for years

That's already a thing. You haven't been convicted of domestic violence you are prohibited from having a fire arm in your home

Maybe you're inability to rationalize is due to not knowing the laws that exist.

The law that prohibits firearms if convicted of domestic violence is also unconstitutional. The law makes an exception for law enforcement, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All laws are to be applied equally to everyone. There cannot be exceptions.

 

[RF667799]

You may not give a shit about the US Constitution and the rights it protects, but that is entirely you and nobody else. I certainly would never tolerate any licensing or background requirements, and I will carry my firearms any damn way I please. Just because you want to piss all over the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments does not mean you will have any support from real Americans. You can only count on the support of anti-American leftist filth who want to utterly destroy the rights of every American, just like you.

Today I found out I am leftist filth.

Move over guys. Make a little room on the Group W bench for me.

 

[RF667799]

The law that prohibits firearms if convicted of domestic violence is also unconstitutional. The law makes an exception for law enforcement, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All laws are to be applied equally to everyone. There cannot be exceptions.

Now that I can agree with. Police officers should not be exempt from the same laws that take guns away from others. They can go get a job as a WalMart greeter or something, if they lose their guns (and motor vehicle) because they can't keep their dick skinners to themselves.

 

[Glitch]

Background checks are done already. Private sales and transfers are the exception. Not a big source for criminal gun acquisition. Now once government ends private sales the few criminals getting them this way will simply switch to one of the other more popular ways. Hence nothing will change for the better. The only thing that will change is that government now essentially has its registration.

The criminal will simply lean harder on straw purchasing, theft, and the black market. One thing is assured the criminals will get guns AND they won’t have a background check thus won’t be on governments radar/registration list. That is once again reserved for the law abiding.

The US Constitution prohibits Congress from interfering with intrastate commerce. Congress only has the authority to regulate international and interstate commerce. Commercial transactions that take place wholly within a given State is outside of Congress' jurisdiction. Which is why I am able to buy and sell my firearms without a background check or any government involvement.

I think that, more than anything else, is what really pisses off the leftist filth. They do not like the idea that government can be limited. They want an all-powerful government that makes slaves of its citizens, like the European countries or Canada.

 

[Glitch]

Today I found out I am leftist filth.

Move over guys. Make a little room on the Group W bench for me.

You clearly support their anti-American ways with your hatred of the American people. Why do you enjoy pissing on the rights of others?

 

[rahl]

The US Constitution prohibits Congress from interfering with intrastate commerce. Congress only has the authority to regulate international and interstate commerce. Commercial transactions that take place wholly within a given State is outside of Congress' jurisdiction. Which is why I am able to buy and sell my firearms without a background check or any government involvement.

You can not buy a firearm from any FFL in any state without a background check.

 

[RF667799]

You clearly support their anti-American ways with your hatred of the American people. Why do you enjoy pissing on the rights of others?

Uh-huh.

 

[Glitch]

You can not buy a firearm from any FFL in any state without a background check.

That is why I do not buy my firearms from FFL holders.

 

[jaeger19]

If they were analogous there would be an enumerated right within the US Constitution that protects our right to own and operate a motorized vehicle. Since it is a well established fact that you do not believe anyone has any rights, I can understand your confusion. Regardless of whether you happen to agree or not, people are born with certain inherent rights, and one of those enumerated rights is to keep and bear arms - without being infringed by government restrictions or limitations.

When you can find a similar enumeration of an inherent right in the US Constitution for automobiles then and only then would vehicles be analogous with arms. Otherwise it isn't even a close analogy because you are incapable of distinguishing between a constitutionally protected right and a government bestowed privilege.

Yeah no.
We have tge right to own and operate a vehicle just as much as a firearm...

9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[jaeger19]

Today I found out I am leftist filth.

Move over guys. Make a little room on the Group W bench for me.

Okay..that was funny!.

You can sit next to me by the way..

We can watch as Glitch goes into the prison handing convicted criminals firearms because the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. ...

Lol..

 

[Glitch]

Yeah no.
We have tge right to own and operate a vehicle just as much as a firearm...

9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

On private lands that may be the case, but not on public roads. On public roads the government establishes the rules, and if they require vehicles to be both licensed and registered, and operators to possess the appropriate license, then that is well-within their authority. The US Constitution protects your right to travel, but it does not specify the mode of travel that is protected.

The right to travel freely is protected under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

In Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418, 430 (1870) when referring to the Privileges and Immunity Clause of the US Constitution the Supreme Court held "beyond doubt those words are words of very comprehensive meaning, but it will be sufficient to say that the clause plainly and unmistakably secures and protects the right of a citizen of one state to pass into any other state of the Union ..."

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869) in regard to the Privileges and Immunity Clause the Supreme Court held "It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws."

More recently, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) the Supreme Court reaffirmed that everyone under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution has the constitutionally protected right to travel from State to State.

There is absolutely nothing that protects a specific means of travel. The one means of travel that government cannot impede is traveling under your own power. So you are certainly free to crawl, walk, jog, run, or even swim, from State to State if you so choose. However, if you intend to use public roads then you are required to abide by the laws and regulations established for those public roads by the government.

 

[jaeger19]

On private lands that may be the case, but not on public roads. On public roads the government establishes the rules, and if they require vehicles to be both licensed and registered, and operators to possess the appropriate license, then that is well-within their authority. The US Constitution protects your right to travel, but it does not specify the mode of travel that is protected.

The right to travel freely is protected under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

In Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418, 430 (1870) when referring to the Privileges and Immunity Clause of the US Constitution the Supreme Court held "beyond doubt those words are words of very comprehensive meaning, but it will be sufficient to say that the clause plainly and unmistakably secures and protects the right of a citizen of one state to pass into any other state of the Union ..."

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869) in regard to the Privileges and Immunity Clause the Supreme Court held "It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws."

More recently, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) the Supreme Court reaffirmed that everyone under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution has the constitutionally protected right to travel from State to State.

There is absolutely nothing that protects a specific means of travel. The one means of travel that government cannot impede is traveling under your own power. So you are certainly free to crawl, walk, jog, run, or even swim, from State to State if you so choose. However, if you intend to use public roads then you are required to abide by the laws and regulations established for those public roads by the governyep. ment.

Yep. Just like you can't decide to fire your weapon indiscriminately and thus the government decides where you can fire your weapon.
The government also determines how said commerce with that firearm is conducted between States.
The government can decide which of its property firearms are allowed etc.


All of those regulations and restrictions are constitutional.

 

[CLAX1911]

The law that prohibits firearms if convicted of domestic violence is also unconstitutional. The law makes an exception for law enforcement, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All laws are to be applied equally to everyone. There cannot be exceptions.

I think it's due process of you are convicted.

 

[Daddyo]

1. No the 2000 election was won with millions upon millions of votes cast.
It would have been impossible for anyone trying to commit fraud to know exactly which counties to commit fraud. And how many needed and whether the people they were posing as would try to vote themselves.

The idea that there is some need for stringent voter id simply doesn't fly.

Not everyone has or needs a drivers license..
Voter ID laws target eligible voters who are less likely to have IDs. In reality, this means these laws suppress the vote from elderly, low-income and voters of color:

18 percent—or almost 6 million—citizens over the age of 65 do not have photo ID;

16 percent of Latino voters do not have government-issued photo ID;

25 percent of voting age African Americans—5.5 million people – do not have ID; and

15 percent of voting age Americans who earn less than $35,000 do not have ID.

Why cant an 18 year year old use their student id?ID?

Make your case how fraud occurs?

How would you commit fraud in a scale enough to rig an election?

Let's hear your justification for a law se didn't need for most of American history.

First the 2000 election was won by 537 votes. That was the margin that Bush won Florida which gave him the electoral college vote count needed to propel him to victory. 6 million votes were cast in Florida and it came down to 537 votes. You are beyond ignorant if you do not know this or if you think that fraud could not easily have changed those results.

You need a drivers license or state id or passport to enroll in college.

You need it for banking.

You need it for welfare.

You need it for air travel.

You need it to get into the DNC.

You need it to shoot at the local gun range.

You need it to visit your ****ing kid in school!

I don’t give a shit what color or voter affiliation you are, show ID or don’t vote. Just as you won’t fly, get to pickup your child at the schools admin office, go to cheer your hero Biden at the dnc, use ANY financial institution including amscot or a pawnshop, or get enrolled in college.

You won’t even be able to get that blunt or a six pack unless you look like a fossil.

So please stop with this leftist lie that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise Blacks.

Also only 69 percent of eligible blacks are registered to vote. So 31 percent of eligible blacks already don’t vote.

 

[Daddyo]

Your last sentence says one half of it. The next to last says the rest.

I am still waiting for those who claim fraud to answer: 1- who recruited all the folks necessary to pull this off, how, why no one but Trump noticed, and why have none of the participants come forward to sell their story? 2- do you believe that all the times Trump has claimed fraud it actually has occurred, and does the fact that he has done it so often ever cause you to question your belief in him?

The reason we are having this conversation is either Trump’s I-can’t-ever-be-a-loser or his I-can’t-stop-grifting-send-me-money pathology.

We are talking about having to show id to vote.

To answer specifically j19’s questions

1. How? It doesn’t take many in an election as close as Florida 2000.

2. Why is id needed now? Because so many folks are such extremists and partisan now a days. On BOTH sides.

As to Trumps claims of fraud. Did you know that dominion voting machines can be manipulated? Was proved by a court appointed IT guy in Georgia. Can be made to flip votes. Some parts are not encrypted. Keys are left with one person. So the possibility exists without a doubt given access and know how.

 

[Daddyo]

Sort of wrong. As I posted, I thought I knew how it operated. Had it been an automatic instead of a revolver, I certainly would have asked.

Things were different back then. The irresponsible act was on you. You probably told them you knew how to use it. Because of folks like you and lawyers businesses had to incorporate stringent rules and formal training. Your ignorance and irresponsibly led to a good thing in this case. Congrats.

 

[Daddyo]

Just to point out..you aren't thinking critically either.

An explanation would give teeth to your gums.

 

[zsu2357]

Depends on the item and the definition of “out of the hands.”

When it comes to guns you don't seem to have a problem with it.

 

[Daddyo]

The law that prohibits firearms if convicted of domestic violence is also unconstitutional. The law makes an exception for law enforcement, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All laws are to be applied equally to everyone. There cannot be exceptions.

A misdemeanor does not take away one’s rights.

Battery domestic violence should not take away gun rights. Slapping you and I still have gun rights. Slapping my wife and my rights are gone. It’s stupid knee jerk leftist crap.

 

[jaeger19]

An explanation would give teeth to your gums.

Well..you are comparing a pregnant women with a baby INSIDE HER to a person killing a child on the street.

That's not critically thinking.

Neither is the idea that democrats WANT illegals to come to America.

Neither demonstrate critical thinking.

 

[Nickyjo]

If they were analogous there would be an enumerated right within the US Constitution that protects our right to own and operate a motorized vehicle. Since it is a well established fact that you do not believe anyone has any rights, I can understand your confusion. Regardless of whether you happen to agree or not, people are born with certain inherent rights, and one of those enumerated rights is to keep and bear arms - without being infringed by government restrictions or limitations.

When you can find a similar enumeration of an inherent right in the US Constitution for automobiles then and only then would vehicles be analogous with arms. Otherwise it isn't even a close analogy because you are incapable of distinguishing between a constitutionally protected right and a government bestowed privilege.

Strange that the courts have held that the right you seem to worship above all others can be infringed. TSA inspections do that daily. Even the Supremes in their dumb decision acknowledged that.

 

[jaeger19]

We are talking about having to show id to vote.

To answer specifically j19’s questions

1. How? It doesn’t take many in an election as close as Florida 2000.

2. Why is id needed now? Because so many folks are such extremists and partisan now a days. On BOTH sides.

As to Trumps claims of fraud. Did you know that dominion voting machines can be manipulated? Was proved by a court appointed IT guy in Georgia. Can be made to flip votes. Some parts are not encrypted. Keys are left with one person. So the possibility exists without a doubt given access and know how.

1. It takes millions..unless you can predict 100% what specific counties in what specific state to commit fraud in.

Which you can't..in other words 600 votes fraudulently cast in Idaho wouldn't have given gore the win.

2.. that's the reason NOT to have voter id.
Having more people who are citizens vote cancels out the extremists on both sides.
Extremists WANT voter id laws to restrict voting thus making their extremist minority more powerful.

3. Yeah..a fully electronic machine could be hacked..but..those voting machines also print out a record of tge vote..which means any anomalies can be tracked real time.
But this fraud isn't due to lack of ID.
It's interesting you bring up Trump.

The us intelligence agencies all stated that the evidence was clear the Russians tried to hack the 2016 elections.

Trump publically stated us intelligence was wrong and he believes putin.

"a news conference after the summit, President Trump was asked if he believed his own intelligence agencies or the Russian president when it came to the allegations of meddling in the elections.

"President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be," he replied.

US intelligence agencies concluded in 2016 that Russia was behind an effort to tip the scale of the US election against Hillary Clinton, with a state-authorised campaign of cyber attacks and fake news stories planted on social media"

Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit

The US president contradicts intelligence agencies over claims of interference in the US election.

www.bbc.com