If you think no limit should be placed on your 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms....

[DainBramaged]

Get out of women's vagina's, get out of our schools, get out of our bedrooms, get out of our courtrooms, get out of our lives, period. When you stop dictating to US how to live maybe we'll talk about your right to own all the weapons of mass destruction you want.


You've proven yourselves incapable of ruling for ALL of the people any of the time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. I was listening to some NRA guy ...

foaming at the mouth about the Constitution being clear that the "right" to keep and bear arms should not be infringed unpon ... I'm still waiting for the 'Liberal" counter-balance guy to ask the simple question:

"Okay ... You're right the Constitution says what it says. So am I to assume you have no problem with allowing those convicted of violent crimes to purchase fire arms after they get out out prison?"

[former9thward]

3. You lose rights of citizenship when you commit a felony.

Depending on the state and crime it may be rights of voting, gun rights, residency, etc.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. No you don't ...

you can be disenfranchised, denied housing, etc., but you don't lose any of the RIGHTS enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[former9thward]

7. You do.

That why you can lose the ones I mentioned. You also can lose 4th amendment search and seizure rights. What do you think "disenfranchised" means?

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. No ...

you don't. You can only lose 4th Amendment protections while you are under supervision of the state, e.g., parole/probation, just like you are in custody; once you've are cleared, you regain that right.

By Disenfranchisement, I am referring to the vote.

[former9thward]

15. I don't know why you are trying to fight reality.

You said: after they get out out prison When you are on parole you have no 4th Amendment rights. Even if you are not on parole you lose the right to vote. You may lose 2nd amendment rights. If you want to deny reality go ahead.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. I don't know why you are trying to fight reality ...

Yes, I did say "after they get out out prison..." You do realize not everyone getting out of prison are on parole, right? When one serves their terminal sentence, they have no tail.

The "Right to vote" is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the "Right to vote" is better described as a right to not be prevented from voting without due process. We place several legitimate restrictions on the "Right to vote."

[former9thward]

38. The right to vote is in the Constitution.

As Professor Epps makes clear, not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, four separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Okay. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

18. Yes you can. They can be removed by due process, such as a court action.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Again, No you don't ...

Name one "right", i.e., enumerated in the Bill of Rights, that can be removed ... even after due process (with the temporary exception of the 4th Amendment right, while under court supervision).

[NutmegYankee]

22. The second comes to mind.

Nice gun you got Mr. Felon - not! You can also be prohibited from publishing or assembling for a cause after a conviction. It has to be a condition imposed by the judge or a standard penalty for a felony.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Okay ...

but that goes to my first point/question for the NRA guy.

I'm not so sure about your second point, so long as the publishing/assembling for for a lawful cause, even after a conviction.

[NutmegYankee]

29. You can have a restriction imposed as a condition of release.

It's legal as it has been imposed through due process of law. Obviously they can't cancel 8th and like, as those are specific to the convicted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. The answer is yes

The NRA and Alec have been working for gun rights restoration legislation.

[dorkulon]

2. It also bears mentioning that the definition of "arms" includes all weapons of war

including mines, missiles, etc. And that there are plenty of regulations regarding knives, clubs, etc. and the legality of owning or carrying them.

[former9thward]

6. You seem to imply there are no or very few regulations about guns.

There are at least 300 major state and federal gun laws. There are up to 20,000 when you count local laws many of which have been preempted by state laws. Maybe we should enforce some that are on the book now.

[bongbong]

9. LOL

> here are at least 300 major state and federal gun laws. There are up to 20,000 when you count local laws many of whi

Looks like Delicate Flowers are now putting a footnote ("at least 300 major&quot on the old NRA Talking Point about "20,000" laws! HILARIOUS!

Here is the truth:

http://www.facebook.com/TomJoadLives/posts/265339956925000?_fb_noscript=1
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

I have just one question for the Delicate Flowers: Do you guys get another Gold Star for every NRA Talking Point you memorize?

[former9thward]

13. Your links back up exactly what I posted.

Thank you.

[bongbong]

16. LOL

My point, which ZOOMED right over your head, is that the NRA-bots have long posted the Talking Point that there are "20000 laws already". Now they're posting it with a "footnote" about "300 laws". Now we have to figure out what that "300" boils down to - maybe 4 or something. Then the NRA-bots will tell us that "we should enforce those 4 laws before writing more!"

[former9thward]

37. You are making fun of your own links.

[bongbong]

41. WOW!

I even explained EXPLICITLY what my point was, and you STILL missed it.

Precious-worship has rotted your brain.

[DanTex]

25. LOL indeed. The "20,000 laws" NRA talking point might be the dumbest one of all.

First of all, it's false, but that's no different from the rest of the NRA talking points. But even if it were true, you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that counting the number of different laws is any kind of measure of the overall strength of the gun control in this country.

[bongbong]

28. Well...

Nobody ever told the NRA that its Talking Points had to be logical, or ethical, or historical, or true, or non-contradictory, or stretches-of-the-truth, or just empty appeals to emotion, or any other of their characteristics.

But those Talking Points are very consistent in one way - they're all lies.

[hack89]

8. Not in American legal tradition

it is pretty much established that it means individual weapons in the context of the 2A. I certainly don't see any major gun rights group arguing otherwise.

[bongbong]

11. LOL

How come your bosses over at the NRA don't scream blood murder about laws against RPG launchers? They're "individual".

[hack89]

12. Show me that RPGs are legal first.

then show me where RPGs have been used in a crime.

[bongbong]

17. LOL

If your questions were what the NRA used for criteria about what they whine to keep legal, your question would have merit.

But it isn't, so answer the question: why isn't the NRA lobbying for legal RPG ownership?

Don't you have somebody you know in the NRA hierarchy you can ask?

[hack89]

19. Because the NRA supports the NFA

that is why.

Because unlike you, they understand what arms means.

[bongbong]

24. LOL

> they understand what arms means.

Yeah, it means whatever the companies that they represent make.



You still haven't answered the question, BTW. Laws never stopped the NRA from their "vital defense of the 2nd Amendment!". Why aren't they lobbying to make RPGs legal? Answer the question; you should be able to find out with a quick phone call to some NRA executive's private cell phone that you might just know by some odd coincidence.

[hack89]

27. Because they don't want RPGs to be legal - that's what Ted told me. nt

[bongbong]

31. Why not?

Your buddy Ted should solicit some lobbying business from companies that make RPGs. Then the NRA would have more than just gun manufacturers to follow the orders of (and collect money from).

[hack89]

32. Because they are not firearms.

and they don't want to support Russian or Chinese companies.

[bongbong]

33. Wrong again

Here is how the dictionary defines firearm:

(Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc.

They meet this definition. And the NRA doesn't care what company it represents, as long as it ignores America. It is like any other repig organization - it would sell its grandmother for a penny.

So, answer the question. I'm waiting. Stop dodging.

[hack89]

34. Here is how US law defines RPGs

The definition of a "destructive device" is found in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). The definition reads as follows:

(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

It the only definition that matters.

[bongbong]

36. Still dodging

The NRA has never let a stupid law stop their lobbying.

Stop dodging & twisting. Why aren't RPGs legal?

[hack89]

40. I like you - you are funny. nt

[bongbong]

42. At least you're consistent

"I worship the Precious 24x7, and nothing will shake my faith in the NRA!"

[hack89]

43. Because I cannot answer a nonsensical question about the NRA

I support the NRA? OK

[bongbong]

44. LOL

I'm not the one who said he knows "Ted", presumably an NRA executive (the only profession he could be if you were answering the question honestly).

Don't worry, I know there's only one rule with you - post anything that supports the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment that the Delicate Flowers love. Mis-truths, games with numbers, etc. Anything is OK since Precious is all-powerful.

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. I'm for getting out of everything mentioned.

Add drugs too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. Fortunately, I DON'T hold that view.

Neither does a single one of the many gun owners I know. I rather suspect the total of hardcore, lunatic fringe libertarian types who believe in NO limits on the Second Amendment are so few in number as to be utterly irrelevant from any possible political standpoint.

[Glassunion]

30. I'm all for it.

Except for vaginas. I like getting into vaginas. Well... One vagina in particular.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

35. ......Then You're Clearly Not Familiar With American Constitutional Law

I can't think of a SINGLE "freedom" enumerated in the Constitution that HASN'T been limited in some way over the course of American History. Think you've got absolute freedom of speech? BUZZZZZZ!!! Think you have freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? Uh uh. Think you have the right to an attorney when you walk into Court? Wrong again. So why do you think the 2nd Amendment is so special that it can't be limited AT ALL?

I don't find the, "It's in the Constitution!" argument persuasive at all. Constitutional amendments have been altered, changed, added completely and repealed completely. What the Constitution says today, it might not say tomorrow, and that's EXACTLY how the Founding Fathers intended it. They wrote the document with the specific intent that it COULD be changed if the passage of time rendered it no longer workable.

So the next time some gun nut, clinging desperately to the last argument he has left, tells you that he should be able to own the Bushmaster Schoolchild Mower-Downer with the optional attachment to shoot down police helicopters because the Constitution says he can, just remind him that in 1864, someone just like him was pulling out a Constitution and saying, "I'm able to own black people because the Constitution says I can," and that during Prohibition, police were arresting people for drinking alcohol because the Constitution said they could. Things change, and the Constitution is no exception.