ny-gun-confiscation-underway-citizens-told-to-turn-in-pistol-owner-id-firearms/
By
skypuppy, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
dmcoco84 5
QuoteNope. You can sell someone a gun with no background check whatsoever.
Are you talking private sale?
Ex) If you are a convicted felon and want to buy my shotgun?
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou support removing guns and gun rights from this undefined class of people you call nutters. If we accept your premise, WHY STOP THERE?
Lame.
According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things.
Lame.
SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment means they can't deny your your rights without due process and equal protection. Also, your emotional response and perjorative label doesn't mean you can violate constitutional rights.
Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things.
So you didn't actually read Heller, then. OK.
I've read it. I remember a lot about protecting and upholding second amendment rights as important and individual. I missed the part where Heller says you can deny constitutional rights without due process. Can you point that part out for me?
Or did you not bother to read it and just trust anti-gun folks to "interpret" it for you?
Not my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual.
So you can't point it out? Thought so. I'm calling you out. Support your claims or take your bullshit and your lies and bugger off.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."; SCOTUS majority opinion, DC vs Heller, written by Justice Scalia. No. 07–290; Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
I'd like an apology now.
You don't deserve one and won't be getting one. You may know all about physics, clearly don't know much about hour the law. Notice SCOTUS did not define or redefine mental illness. They didn't have to. Mental illness in relation losing rights is already clearly defined. Notice "longstanding prohibitions". That means things already in place. It doesn't mean you get to redefine mental illness or include whatever you like, and it certainly doesn't include denying rights without due process. It is what the law says it is. It is not what you want it to be just because you want it.
"Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things." Suck it up, cupcake.
Thank you for grudgingly and with bad grace actually admitting that I was correct when I wrote:
"According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things."
Attempting to recover from your mistake by trying to contradict stuff that I didn't write (strawman) just makes you look silly.
Get over yourself, cupcake.
Wow, could you be more full of it? You use Heller to support your contention that more steps can be taken to prevent your class of "nutters" from getting guns, but you can't define nutters and SCOTUS only gives support for longstanding prohibitions banning guns for clearly defined groups.
I'll admit I was wrong and offer heartfelt apologies if you say you think current law is sufficient. I'll do the same if you'll finally define a "nutter", rather than offer examples using bad acts someone has committed. Otherwise, you're just plain full of it, because I know you're smarter than to think you've supported your views.
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteInnocent until proven guilty.
Mentally competent, until proven mentally incompetent.
The professor seems to have serious problems with these concepts.
Folks like him want some magical "them" to preemptively stop anyone from doing anything bad, and failure to do so means government needs more power and control.
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
billvon 2,691
Yes.
billvon 2,691
Your one warning.
kallend 1,819
Quote***Thank you for grudgingly and with bad grace actually admitting that I was correct when I wrote:
"According to DC vs Heller, preventing the mentally ill and felons from having guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Much as you may dislike it, the SCOTUS (and NOT YOU) decide these things."
Attempting to recover from your mistake by trying to contradict stuff that I didn't write (strawman) just makes you look silly.
Get over yourself, cupcake.
Wow... you are one Brain Dead Professor.
My mistake? And what mistake is that?
What are you saying I have contradicted... every bit of my statements have remained consistent, and you are not correct in any degree by what you have posted and trying to imply.
So you are Kennedy's sock puppet? Looks like admitting that is another mistake on your part, then
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,819
QuoteQuoteInnocent until proven guilty.
Mentally competent, until proven mentally incompetent.
The professor seems to have serious problems with these concepts.
Folks like him want some magical "them" to preemptively stop anyone from doing anything bad, and failure to do so means government needs more power and control.
Talking to yourself now?
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,819
What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding?
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding?
I suspect it's that part where you leap from "not unlimited" to "any limitations are permissible." It's a deliberate logical lie on your part.
And used so many times, it really should be ignored as troll bait.
wolfriverjoe 1,456
Quote"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding?
The part that you seem to think eliminates due process.
Please show me where the SC implied that "not unlimited" means "ignores due process."
And what about the word "Commercial" in reference to sales?
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
This does not translate to, that the State (Local, State, Federal) can screen people with a panel of experts (like in Canada or UK) to determine if they are "not healthy in regard to mental health", by standards set up by the State.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Mentally competent, until proven mentally incompetent.
You are wrong... Son.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites