So you -cannot- provide any quotes from anyone that makes that argument.Here's your answer from the poll above...I'm done
No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable. 33
Absolutely incorrect.
Driving on public roads is a privilege.
Keeping and bearing arms is a right.
Arguing that because the state may regulate the former it may then regulate the latter in a similar manner is non-sequitur.
As I noted before, and as you ignored, any and all constitutional restrictions on the right to arms would necessarily parallel those on the right to free speech.
any body else want to get back on topic
You can start by respondng to this post:I'll be happy too.
You can start by respondng to this post:
Look...Some of us actually want to get back on topic here. I'm through playing...The next post of yours that attempts to derail this topic will get reported so that you can be (hopefully) removed from this thread.
Knock it off!
Good -- that means you will respond to my post.Look...Some of us actually want to get back on topic here. I'm through playing...
Good -- that means you will respond to my post.
Of course not -- because you know your positions are indefensible.No I won't.
Moderator's Warning: |
Alright. EVERYONE needs to get back on topic and focusing on the actual topic, not each other. If you don't feel a poster is worth responding to then don't respond, stop derailing the thread by making posts just insulting and focusing on individuals and why you won't listen. If a poster isn't responding to you posting over, and over, and over again essentially going "I'm waiting" is not adding anything to the thread. The next person to derail the topic or complain in thread about people going "off topic" is getting the boot. |
Moderator's Warning: Alright. EVERYONE needs to get back on topic and focusing on the actual topic, not each other. If you don't feel a poster is worth responding to then don't respond, stop derailing the thread by making posts just insulting and focusing on individuals and why you won't listen. If a poster isn't responding to you posting over, and over, and over again essentially going "I'm waiting" is not adding anything to the thread.
The next person to derail the topic or complain in thread about people going "off topic" is getting the boot.
The obvious question is then: what constitutes an 'infringement'.Back on topic: It seems obvious that the amendment is clear and concise. No infringment upon individuals owning arms is acceptable. Who can dispute that?
The obvious question is then: what constitutes an 'infringement'.
I'd argue that, generally:
-Preconditions to the exercise of the right that are not inherent to same
-Prior restraint, in relevant terms.
Pretty much.Sounds good, basically anything that keeps a firearm out of the hands of a law abiding citizen (prior restraint) and no preconditions except for criminals and mentally handicapped etc?
and no preconditions except for criminals
During incarceration, OK, after release, unacceptable.
Once a person has shown that they are untrustworthy, committing a rape, murder or other felony, then it is literally illogical and insane to allow them legal access to fire arms...
Then it would be literally illogical and insane to allow them out of jail.
If you can prove that jail rehibilitates criminals so that they are no longer a threat and prove that the revolving door issue is untrue, thus indicating that they should be able to have fire arms that simply make it even easier for them to rape and murder again, then your statement would merit any type of reasonable response, until then though, think whatever you like buddy...
That was worded in a rather convoluted way that was a bit difficult to follow. Want to have another go at it?
IMHO, if you commit a crime so severe that you could never be trusted with arms (legally) again, ie rape, murder, armed robbery, home invasion, any felony where someone dies or nearly dies, that sort of thing....then you should never get out of jail, period. If we did that, we wouldn't need to be talking about gun control, because we'd have the thing we really need: criminal control.
One problem with your thinking is that we simply do not have the space in our prison system to accommodate all those prisoners for life, so your plan is not possible in the real world.
I'm sorry, I have to go pick up my eyes.. they just rolled out of my head and onto the floor.
Why bother....You don't SEE anything with them anyway!:lol:
(sorry.......to wide an opening for me to resist!):3oops:
Sling the personal insults, instead of actually responding to my post.
Way to go, champ.