Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[AFK]

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.

Have you ever even read the constitution?

It was tongue-in-cheek. 


It's funny how certain parts of the constitution (amendments V and VI) can allow regulation of the 2nd but others (commerce clause) can't.  How does that work?  Is this Constitutional A La Carte?

Amendments V and VI describe the events under which you can lose ALL of your rights.  The commerce clause does not.

Am I typing too fast for you, junior?  Shall I use smaller words?

That wasn't the question I asked.  Why can one part of the Constitution interact with and impact the 2nd when another cannot? 


Of course, I think it's clear they both can as gun regulation HAS happened in the past and has been perfectly Constitutional, including the prior ban that is only not in existence because it expired and was not renewed.  Your reasoning doesn't hold up to precedent and reality. 

[AFK]

But I suppose that's a case where you are right and all of the other policy experts are wrong, right?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That wasn't the question I asked.  Why can one part of the Constitution interact with and impact the 2nd when another cannot? 

Because the part that can was designed to do so.

You really are fucking dense.  Jesus.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But I suppose that's a case where you are right and all of the other policy experts are wrong, right?

Well, you're certainly wrong.  You've expressed both your contempt for and your utter inability to read and understand the document.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.

"Shall not be infringed upon".

Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.

Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.

To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.

Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?

Pretty much.  The point of the second amendment has nothing at all to do with sport or hunting.  It has to do with deliberately having an armed population for its own sake.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Another thing that it does, though this wasn't intentional at the time it was written, is to drive control freaks like RWHN right up a tree.

TGRR,
I <3 James Madison.

[AFK]

But I suppose that's a case where you are right and all of the other policy experts are wrong, right?

Well, you're certainly wrong.  You've expressed both your contempt for and your utter inability to read and understand the document.

I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on.  So, I'll try again, is everyone else wrong?  All of the people who proposed, and passed gun control policies in the past?  The legislators and others who didn't raise Constitutional objections?  The judges who didn't strike down gun control?  They are ALL wrong and YOU are right, is that it?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on. 

It's more that I'm ignoring them.  After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation.  Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.

This is what you demanded.  Well, now you have it.

[AFK]

This is where you get frustrated and start calling me names, or make a comment about by job, or my experience, or, OH, how this is all just about my ex-wife.  That one makes me giggle.   

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is where you get frustrated and start calling me names, or make a comment about by job, or my experience, or, OH, how this is all just about my ex-wife.  That one makes me giggle.   

I was frustrated yesterday.  Now I just hate you, in the same manner that I hated Dead Kennedy.

[AFK]

I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on. 

It's more that I'm ignoring them.  After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation.  Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.

This is what you demanded.  Well, now you have it.

Because I disagree with you.  Fuck, the heresy!  How dare I disagree with Mr. TGRR!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And this may not be about your ex-wife, but it gives a certain insight into why she dumped you.

[AFK]

This is where you get frustrated and start calling me names, or make a comment about by job, or my experience, or, OH, how this is all just about my ex-wife.  That one makes me giggle.   

I was frustrated yesterday.  Now I just hate you, in the same manner that I hated Dead Kennedy.

Wow, do you hate everyone who has a different opinion than you? 

[AFK]

And this may not be about your ex-wife, but it gives a certain insight into why she dumped you.

Are you kidding, she's a bleeding heart liberal.  She'd go further than what I'm talking about. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on. 

It's more that I'm ignoring them.  After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation.  Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.

This is what you demanded.  Well, now you have it.

Because I disagree with you.  Fuck, the heresy!  How dare I disagree with Mr. TGRR!

Nope.  Lots of people disagree with me.  This has more to do with you ignoring me stating my case, and then taking half of an unrelated post, and presenting it as my argument.  You're basically a dishonest scumbag, and yesterday finally proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

But you knew that, RWHN, because you did it deliberately.  Now you're just continuing to be dishonest, which is really all I expect from you.