And now we have Tuesday’s mass shooting,

[Into the Night]

I wonder why there has never been a mass shooting at a police station or an NRA convention?

Heh. They shoot back, obviously!

The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is good guys with guns. There are a LOT more good guys than bad guys.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes.

Unconstitutional.

 

[Micawber]

what actual reference DO you have that says rights can be regulated?


You sir, are a grade a moron.

 

[Into the Night]

Even arch conservative Scalia admits that with respect to guns

[FONT=&]“Nothing in our opinion should 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.” [/FONT][FONT=&]“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” -Scalia in Heller delivering the Opinion of the Court[/FONT]

Neither Scalia nor the Supreme Court have authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

But doesn’t he have the inherent right to murder who he wants, exercise his “freedom?”

No. It is not an inherent right to murder.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That's not what I said I said,

"...to try and establish that a person has a minimal level of skill to operate the vehicle."

so i'll ask again, wouldn't the number of accidents and fatalities by licensed drivers, as compared to unlicensed drivers, show that licenses don't do what most people think they do?

another question would be 'do you think the founders would have laughed at anyone suggesting a person have a license to drive a horse drawn wagon?'

 

[archives]

hyperbole and sensationalist bullshit.

Not at all, fits exactly into the distorted view of “freedom” that gun advocates echo, if I have an inherent right to do anything I want, why is anything taken out of the picture

 

[archives]

No. It is not an inherent right to murder.

Why not? If nothing can be regulated that infringes on one’s “freedom” how can murder?

 

[AProudLefty]

Did Timothy McVeigh use a gun? What about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

 

[Yakuda]

so i'll ask again, wouldn't the number of accidents and fatalities by licensed drivers, as compared to unlicensed drivers, show that licenses don't do what most people think they do?

another question would be 'do you think the founders would have laughed at anyone suggesting a person have a license to drive a horse drawn wagon?'

No not at all

No not if it was framed as what it is, a source of revenue for the govt.

 

[Into the Night]

That's not what I said I said,

"...to try and establish that a person has a minimal level of skill to operate the vehicle."

A person may own a vehicle. That's a right. They may drive that vehicle. That's a right. Driving said vehicle on public roads is regulated by the State for the purpose of forming 'rules of the road', so to speak. The State cannot arbitrarily decide not to issue you that driver's license. If you can show you can control your vehicle to conform with the rules of the road, they MUST issue you the license. They get no choice.

Guns have no 'rules of the road'. You point and shoot. The usual assault and murder laws apply, of course.

 

[Yakuda]

A person may own a vehicle. That's a right. They may drive that vehicle. That's a right. Driving said vehicle on public roads is regulated by the State for the purpose of forming 'rules of the road', so to speak. The State cannot arbitrarily decide not to issue you that driver's license. If you can show you can control your vehicle to conform with the rules of the road, they MUST issue you the license. They get no choice.

Guns have no 'rules of the road'. You point and shoot. The usual assault and murder laws apply, of course.

I don't believe owning a car is a right.

 

[archives]

Neither Scalia nor the Supreme Court have authority to change the Constitution.

Nobody said they changed the Constitution, rather they interpret it, did you ever question why the Government can regulate say such as insurance when there is nothing remotely in the Commerce clause mentioning insurance

 

[AProudLefty]

I don't believe owning a car is a right.

Even the one with a cracked head?

 

[Into the Night]

Wait a minute, you want direct quotes from someone saying exactly rights are not absolute? For real? Ever read John Locke?

Show us a direct quote from a Founding Father saying guns in America can not be regulated, and don’t say “not infringed,” that is totally reliant upon the predatory clause which no one has been able to interrupt, we want to see “can not be regulated”

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.

The 2nd amendment prohibits the government from infringing on the State's right of self defense (through the use of militias) and it prohibits the government from infringing on the individuals right to keep and bear arms (that means ANY weapon).

'Not infringed' means NO regulation or law may restrict weapons or from the States forming militias.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wait a minute, you want direct quotes from someone saying exactly rights are not absolute? For real? Ever read John Locke?

state your claim...........

Show us a direct quote from a Founding Father saying guns in America can not be regulated, and don’t say “not infringed,” that is totally reliant upon the predatory clause which no one has been able to interrupt, we want to see “can not be regulated”

the right of the people is not dependent upon membership in a militia. The militia were in fact the people themselves..........
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." — George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. — Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;... — Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. — Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not at all, fits exactly into the distorted view of “freedom” that gun advocates echo, if I have an inherent right to do anything I want, why is anything taken out of the picture

this is a perfect example of how you don't understand freedom

 

[archives]

so i'll ask again, wouldn't the number of accidents and fatalities by licensed drivers, as compared to unlicensed drivers, show that licenses don't do what most people think they do?

another question would be 'do you think the founders would have laughed at anyone suggesting a person have a license to drive a horse drawn wagon?'

Ah, no, cause the overwhelming number of people operating a vehicle are licensed so of course the number will be higher, and horse drawn wagons could never hit speeds up to a 120+

 

[Into the Night]

That form is kept by the dealer forever. Stupid lying fuck.

It's also sent to the federal government, you stupid lying fuck.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No not at all

No not if it was framed as what it is, a source of revenue for the govt.

so you're in support of the government being able to tax the exercise of a right for revenue generation?