KY school shooting

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 09:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I am still confused.

What does this have to do with your claim that gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens?

The second person in this meme does not directly quote and repeat what the first person said.  In the discussion we are having I directly quoted exactly what you said. 

So how does this meme have anything to do with our discussion?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2018, 02:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I feel that might be a tad too physically intrusive and expensive, but answer me this.

A fancy way of saying, no.  So I guess you recognize government overreach.

Quote:Would you be willing to certify your current address and provide a photo ID to the government in order to receive a drivers license? 

Sure would, driving a car not being a a constitutional right and all.  (You can almost hear your prepared gotcha deflating btw)

Quote:You would have nothing to worry about if you are not a criminal, the information would never be used against you otherwise.  Please indicate your acceptence of such a national database SSF.

Oh dear, Fred.  Such a database already exists.  Such is the price in our government of the acceptance of a non constitutionally provided right.  

[fredtoast]

(02-08-2018, 02:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A fancy way of saying, no.  So I guess you recognize government overreach.

Yes, and that is why I am against requiring gun owners to have a chip implanted.  But what does that have to do with the discussion we are having? What made you think I wanted chips implanted in anyone?

(02-08-2018, 02:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure would, driving a car not being a a constitutional right and all.  (You can almost hear your prepared gotcha deflating btw)

We have already been over this.  Constitutional rights of all types are limited for public safety reasons.  Gun ownership is no different.

In fact if you actually read the constitution you would see these exact words "WELL REGULATED" militia.  How is the government supposed to be able to utilize this militia if all the members are secret?  Doesn't that actually defeat the purpose of a militia if the government has no way of using it?


"Silly Fred, the Constitution strictly forbids any regulations on it well regulated militia."
 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2018, 03:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, and that is why I am against requiring gun owners to have a chip implanted.  But what does that have to do with the discussion we are having? What made you think I wanted chips implanted in anyone?

What person wouldn't want such a common sense registry?

Quote:We have already been over this.  Constitutional rights of all types are limited for public safety reasons.  Gun ownership is no different.

Sure.  Kindly cit the SCOTUS ruling that supports your claim then.

Quote:In fact if you actually read the constitution you would see these exact words "WELL REGULATED" militia.  How is the government supposed to be able to utilize this militia if all the members are secret?  Doesn't that actually defeat the purpose of a militia if the government has no way of using it?

I believe you're referring to the Bill of Rights ( a lawyer would be precise after all).  Please familiarize yourself with recent SCOTUS rulings before making a disproven argument.  Thank you.

Quote:"Silly Fred, the Constitution strictly forbids any regulations on it well regulated militia

Quote:."

Quote: 

Silly Fred, see District of Columbia v. Heller.  KTHNXBYE.  

[fredtoast]

(02-08-2018, 03:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure.  Kindly cit the SCOTUS ruling that supports your claim then.

Okay then

(02-08-2018, 03:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Silly Fred, see District of Columbia v. Heller.  KTHNXBYE.    

Page 54


 Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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.




Nothing makes me laugh more than people who cite cases they have never read.  

I don't know why you brought up Heller when it was ruling on a total ban on gun ownership.  I have never been in favor of anything like that.  But thanks for the cite that confirms my position that the government has the right to regulate the ownership and sale of guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2018, 04:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then


Page 54


 Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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.




Nothing makes me laugh more than people who cite cases they have never read.  

I don't know why you brought up Heller when it was ruling on a total ban on gun ownership.  I have never been in favor of anything like that.  But thanks for the cite that confirms my position that the government has the right to regulate the ownership and sale of guns.

Read it, understand it, nothing you cited refuted my assertions.  Cite the "well regulated militia" section of the Heller decision please.

[fredtoast]

(02-08-2018, 04:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: nothing you cited refuted my assertions. 

You have repeatedly asserted that since the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right then it can not be regulated for public safety like all other dangerous items.  That is the reason you say we can regulate cars but not guns.  So when you asked me to cite a SC decision to back up my position I just pulled a quote directly from the decision you tried to pretend like you had read.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2018, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You have repeatedly asserted that since the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right then it can not be regulated for public safety like all other dangerous items.  That is the reason you say we can regulate cars but not guns.  So when you asked me to cite a SC decision to back up my position I just pulled a quote directly from the decision you tried to pretend like you had read.

Actually, Heller, backs up my assertion, that the right to own a firearm to defend yourself is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  No one in this thread has argued that there can be no limits on firearms ownership.  Once again, Fred argues against a point that no one made.

[fredtoast]

(02-08-2018, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, Heller, backs up my assertion, that the right to own a firearm to defend yourself is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  No one in this thread has argued that there can be no limits on firearms ownership.  Once again, Fred argues against a point that no one made.

Gee, I wonder how I ever got the impression that you thought the fact that owning a gun was a Constitutional right meant it could not be regulated.

(01-25-2018, 11:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Holding people responsible for killing someone with a car is the reason we have laws that require every driver to be trained and hold a license and every car to be registered to an owner who could be held responsible.

(01-25-2018, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Driving a car isn't a constitutional right, is it?

(01-25-2018, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope.  The point is that gun ownership is a constitutional right, driving a car is not.

(01-25-2018, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Once again, ignoring that owning a firearm is a constitutional right.  You don't just get to ignore this fact because it inconveniences you.  Do we need training and licensing to exercise our right to free speech?

(01-25-2018, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How am I "ignoring it" by explaining how it can be limited based on public safety?  It seems that you are the one ignoring my answer. 

(02-08-2018, 02:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure would, driving a car not being a a constitutional right and all.  (You can almost hear your prepared gotcha deflating btw)

(02-08-2018, 03:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: We have already been over this.  Constitutional rights of all types are limited for public safety reasons.  Gun ownership is no different.

(02-08-2018, 03:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure.  Kindly cit the SCOTUS ruling that supports your claim then.

So if you really knew that Constitutional rights could be limited for public safety reasons then why did you demand a citation to prove it?

In fact it seems to me that your ONLY argument about why we can't require training and licensing (NOT banning all ownership) is that gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-09-2018, 03:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Gee, I wonder how I ever got the impression that you thought the fact that owning a gun was a Constitutional right meant it could not be regulated.













So if you really knew that Constitutional rights could be limited for public safety reasons then why did you demand a citation to prove it?

In fact it seems to me that your ONLY argument about why we can't require training and licensing (NOT banning all ownership) is that gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

Kindly point out where, in any of my posts that you quoted, that actually reinforces your assertion that I've argued that the 2nd amendment is completely immune to government regulation.  Sincerely, quit wasting my time with your insipid horse shit.

[fredtoast]

(02-09-2018, 10:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Kindly point out where, in any of my posts that you quoted, that actually reinforces your assertion that I've argued that the 2nd amendment is completely immune to government regulation. 

Every time I mentioned regulating guns for public safety the same way we do cars you started squealing about how gun ownership was a Constitutional Right and driving was not.

Why did you keep bringing up that distinction if you knew it did not matter?  You acted like you thought by pointing out the difference you were explaining why we can regulate cars and not guns.

If that was not your point then why did you keep making this distinction?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2018, 03:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Every time I mentioned regulating guns for public safety the same way we do cars you started squealing about how gun ownership was a Constitutional Right and driving was not.

Why did you keep bringing up that distinction if you knew it did not matter?  You acted like you thought by pointing out the difference you were explaining why we can regulate cars and not guns.

If that was not your point then why did you keep making this distinction?

That's a lot of words to say you couldn't find an example of what you accused me of.  I believe the first post that DUI fatalities was mentioned rather succinctly sums up the reason for bringing it up.


Since you'll go back and forth claiming I said things I didn't, let me ask a different question.  Would you be opposed to everyone having a GPS locator implanted that could only be activated by court order?

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2018, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a lot of words to say you couldn't find an example of what you accused me of.

Actually no.  It was an example of me posting several examples of you doing exactly what I said you did.

That is claim that the reason we could not regulate guns the way we did cars was because gun ownership was a specific Constitutional Right while driving a car was not.

(02-12-2018, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe the first post that DUI fatalities was mentioned rather succinctly sums up the reason for bringing it up.

I have no idea what post you are talking about with DUI deaths.  What number was it?

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2018, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Would you be opposed to everyone having a GPS locator implanted that could only be activated by court order?

No.  I would not be in favor of something like that because I feel that is too physically invasive.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2018, 05:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I would not be in favor of something like that because I feel that is too physically invasive.

Cool, how about everyone has their DNA collected at birth for a national database and your DNA could only be accessed via court order?

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2018, 07:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool, how about everyone has their DNA collected at birth for a national database and your DNA could only be accessed via court order?

No problem with that. 

BTW you know when I know that I have won an argument?   When my opponent either runs away to a different subject or starts yelling personal insults at me.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-13-2018, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No problem with that.

Excellent.  We have now established your baseline.  You don't care about the government having information that they could easily abuse.  I do, hence your stance on the gun issue and mine.  

Quote:BTW you know when I know that I have won an argument?   When my opponent either runs away to a different subject or starts yelling personal insults at me.

Oh Fred, that's adorable.  

[fredtoast]

(02-13-2018, 11:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent.  We have now established your baseline.  You don't care about the government having information that they could easily abuse.  I do, hence your stance on the gun issue and mine.  

That is what I have said all along.

You have no argument based on public safety or any legal grounds.

The only thing you base your argument on is paranoia.  When has the government abused the information we give them to register our cars or comply with any of the hundreds of other public safety regulations?

Having a gun registry and license requirement will not change anything.  The government can try to make guns illegal without a registry just as easy as with it.  And if the government does make all guns illegal all gun owners have to do is the exact same thing they are doing now.  Just lie and claim all your guns were stolen.  The registry will not help the government confiscate any weapons.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101

Another school shooting

[Vas Deferens]

so terrible. just heard someone on the news say this event was 'worse' than the last (KY).

weve gotten to the point that were qualitatively ranking school shootings.

so terrible.