Why Guns Should Be Confiscated[W:730]

[jimbo]

Re: Douchemarket

Please answer this. What part dont you understand?

Please explain how your statement applies *only to the 2A* then? What in the specific language of that right would demonstrate the fact (as you claim) that if a right protected by the 2A can be exercised, it has not been infringed?

Because you wrote this:



For example, are you saying that if I can keep a gun in my house, but am not allowed to buy ammunition for it...my right to exercise my 2A rights are not infringed? Are you saying that I am able to exercise my 2A rights with an unloaded gun?

You get this...you just dont want to own it now. So...please articulate your original quote in the context of my question.

Haymarket has stated that as long as just one arm is allowed the Constitution has not been violated.

That's similar to arguing that as long as I can say hello and only hello the 1st has not been violated.

So the language of the first must stand alone. The second the same.

 

[jimbo]

Re: Douchemarket

The specific language of the Amendment prohibits its infringement. If the right can be exercised, then it has not been infringed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If the right can be exercised , then it has not been infringed against.

In your question about the ammunition making it an unloaded gun: if a law was passed making ammunition or bullets illegal that would have the practical effect of negating the gun itself and its function, that would cause the right to be infringed. Unless it was selective and only a specific ammunition for a specific firearm and there was plenty of other options to select from and your right could be exercised.

There is nothing in the language of the second that limits the meaning of infringed to what you think I should be allowed.

 

[Serenity]

Re: Why Guns Should Be Confiscated

One minute in and it seems to me that she has a bipolar issue or suffers from a form of paranoid schizophrenia. I really hope she doesn't have guns, but she probably does.

That's the "Patriot Nurse."

She's an anti-vaccine nutter, claims to be a nurse, charges money for people to attend her seminars/training sessions where she gives medical advice yet provides zero proof of being a licensed nurse.

Ask her where her medical prep classes are held and her response;

Where exactly are the Medical Prep classes held?

Answer: We do not release this information to the public for security and quality control. Once you've registered and paid for class, you will receive details approximately a month before class noting the location address and further instructions.

:lol:

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

There is nothing in the language of the second that limits the meaning of infringed to what you think I should be allowed.

Of course there isn't. I never said there was. I do not have the power to decide what should be allowed.

It is about what the American people, through their government, feels should be allowed and still maintain the right to be exercised as the Constitution says. That is an inherent function of society and one of the purposes of government and that is right and proper.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

Haymarket has stated that as long as just one arm is allowed the Constitution has not been violated.

Where did I state this? I certainly do not remember ever taking that position and it is NOT my position.

 

[jimbo]

Re: Douchemarket

Of course there isn't. I never said there was. I do not have the power to decide what should be allowed.

It is about what the American people, through their government, feels should be allowed and still maintain the right to be exercised as the Constitution says. That is an inherent function of society and one of the purposes of government and that is right and proper.

I was using you in its generic form. Down here in Redneck land we actually say you'all. And no, without changing the Constitution it's not an inherent right of the government or society to infringe on the right.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: Douchemarket

I was using you in its generic form. Down here in Redneck land we actually say you'all. And no, without changing the Constitution it's not an inherent right of the government or society to infringe on the right.

In Alabama where I'm originally from it's "ya'll", "all y'all" and "your mama 'n' them".

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

I was using you in its generic form. Down here in Redneck land we actually say you'all. And no, without changing the Constitution it's not an inherent right of the government or society to infringe on the right.

Nobody is talking about having the right infringed.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: Douchemarket

Nobody is talking about having the right infringed.

According to your definition of "infringed", which means that as long as someone can own a single shot .22 then the right isn't infringed.

 

[jimbo]

Re: Douchemarket

Nobody is talking about having the right infringed.

You are.

In your question about the ammunition making it an unloaded gun: if a law was passed making ammunition or bullets illegal that would have the practical effect of negating the gun itself and its function, that would cause the right to be infringed. Unless it was selective and only a specific ammunition for a specific firearm and there was plenty of other options to select from and your right could be exercised.

Leaving me with a couple of choices, or only one, is an infringement.

Connecticut has a law stating that if just one so called smart gun is available anywhere then only that and similar firearms can be sold within the state. That law was nearly triggered a year ago.

You can dance around semantics all you want, but you can't dance around facts.
.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

According to your definition of "infringed", which means that as long as someone can own a single shot .22 then the right isn't infringed.

nope - never said that nor is that my position.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

You are.

In your question about the ammunition making it an unloaded gun: if a law was passed making ammunition or bullets illegal that would have the practical effect of negating the gun itself and its function, that would cause the right to be infringed. Unless it was selective and only a specific ammunition for a specific firearm and there was plenty of other options to select from and your right could be exercised.

Leaving me with a couple of choices, or only one, is an infringement.

Connecticut has a law stating that if just one so called smart gun is available anywhere then only that and similar firearms can be sold within the state. That law was nearly triggered a year ago.

You can dance around semantics all you want, but you can't dance around facts.
.

nope - the right is being exercised and I see nobody in any position of power or responsibility talking about the right being infringed..... other than Trump perhaps with his take the guns first and worry about due process later remarks. But then that could have been just more delusional ranting from a badly unbalanced mind.

Never heard of the Connecticut law... feel free to present it if you feel its serves some point.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Why Guns Should Be Confiscated

That's the "Patriot Nurse."

She's an anti-vaccine nutter, claims to be a nurse, charges money for people to attend her seminars/training sessions where she gives medical advice yet provides zero proof of being a licensed nurse.

Ask her where her medical prep classes are held and her response;



:lol:

Sounds super legit.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Douchemarket

nope - never said that nor is that my position.

sure it is.

You may not want to admit that it is your position.. or maybe you are not able to comprehend that it is your position.. but it most certainly is.

We have been over this already.

Exactly WHEN does banning a firearm constitute an infringement. Go ahead.. you give me EXACTLY when it goes from people constitutional.. to not constitutional.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

sure it is.

You may not want to admit that it is your position.. or maybe you are not able to comprehend that it is your position.. but it most certainly is.

We have been over this already.

Exactly WHEN does banning a firearm constitute an infringement. Go ahead.. you give me EXACTLY when it goes from people constitutional.. to not constitutional.

This is great!!!! You can debate me and write both my lines plus yours. Amazing!!!!!!!!!! :doh:roll:

 

[Rucker61]

Re: Douchemarket

This is great!!!! You can debate me and write both my lines plus yours. Amazing!!!!!!!!!! :doh:roll:

Exactly WHEN does banning a firearm constitute an infringement. Go ahead.. you give me EXACTLY when it goes from people constitutional.. to not constitutional.

 

[Casper]

Re: Douchemarket

This is great!!!! You can debate me and write both my lines plus yours. Amazing!!!!!!!!!! :doh:roll:

Answer
His
Question

 

[JLee1977]

Re: Why Guns Should Be Confiscated

Criminalizing a non adjudicated dignosis of mental illness will only result in mentally ill people not voluntary seek out treatment!

 

[Casper]

Re: Why Guns Should Be Confiscated

Criminalizing a non adjudicated dignosis of mental illness will only result in mentally ill people not voluntary seek out treatment!

Agree, and why some, with just cause, should have an involuntary evaluation and if no problems sent on their merry way, but if there are major issues then they Must be dealt with per the law.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Douchemarket

Haymarket has stated that as long as just one arm is allowed the Constitution has not been violated.

That's similar to arguing that as long as I can say hello and only hello the 1st has not been violated.

So the language of the first must stand alone. The second the same.

I tried that already, very similar example: If you could use only 10 specific words, your 1A rights would not be infringed.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

Exactly WHEN does banning a firearm constitute an infringement. Go ahead.. you give me EXACTLY when it goes from people constitutional.. to not constitutional.

When the right can no longer be exercised by a citizen.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

Answer
His
Question

already did.

 

[Casper]

Re: Douchemarket

already did.

Actually, No you did not.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

Actually, No you did not.

its right there in 146
and its what I have been saying for years

 

[Casper]

Re: Douchemarket

its right there in 146
and its what I have been saying for years

First off, when I asked the question you had Not answered it, opps:doh
Secondly in essence in your answer you are saying that so long as someone can own a black power rifle and nothing else their Right has not been infringed, which is complete nonsense and we both know it. Besides you probably think that Americans should not have those firearms either, just admit you want all firearms banned and be done with it, at least that would be honest.