A simple question for gun rights folk.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
We know what the law does, but the question is WHY do advocates feel its needed. To date, a few on this thread honestly answered that lifestyles wouldn't be affected, but people would "feel" safer. In my life time, people feeling unsafe change their habits and routines.....so this "feeling" seems rather hyped if not altogether a bogus reason. Just saying.

RQAA

translation: ITN couldn't not rationally, logically or factually refute, disprove or debunk my previous post....he just doesn't like having his beliefs effectively countered.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Umm, no.


Per federal law 18 USC § 926A, every U.S. citizen may legally transport firearms across state lines as long as he or she is legally allowed to possess the weapons in both the state of origin as well as the destination.

As for the 1986 FOPA;

https://government-programs.laws.com...protection-act

Which NY and NJ routinely ignore. Both are violating the law.

Stop lying, because you cannot produce one on the books case of these alleged violations. The laws are separate and specific in what they effect. If you can prove otherwise, do so. This is why the SCOTUS law ranks up there with the historic Plessey vs. Ferguson bonehead ruling.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Not really, because the State still reverse the right to regulate it's laws.

No State has authority to ban or limit guns.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
The fed may give any gun owning yahoo the right to walk around strapped, but the State decides what's off limits outside a city street.

Unconstitutional.

1. Typo: "reserve". and WTF do you think that gun purchase rules differ in each state? I said REGULATE, NOT BAN.

2. How is it unconstitutional if you are a licensed gun owner and that weapon is in your home? Nothing in the Constitution about walking around strapped 24/7 with a handgun. No "interpretation" can logically assert that. State and federal law susses that out, which is why the SCOTUS law essentially impedes on State law.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Umm, no.


Per federal law 18 USC § 926A, every U.S. citizen may legally transport firearms across state lines as long as he or she is legally allowed to possess the weapons in both the state of origin as well as the destination.

As for the 1986 FOPA;

https://government-programs.laws.com...protection-act

all I can say is that you're a blind and ignorant moron as to what happens across the nation today. you absolute REFUSE to accept the truth, choosing instead to stay mired in your own murky delusions and consider that to be reality.

translation: STY is having a hissy fit because I logically and factually decimated his assertions and statements. He still thinks his opinion is on par with facts and the logic derived from said facts. This is why the OP question unhinges folk like STY, because their minds explode at the very hint they are wrong on any level.

I took STY, our cowardly arm chair Oath Keeper off the ignore list for an honest debate. Clearly, he's still intellectually impotent on the subject ( and still in denial of his pants pissing actions regarding Jan. 6th, where he changed his icon, threw his brethren under the bus and lied/denied all his past bluster). So I can now comfortable put the little POS on permanent ignore.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

translation: STY is having a hissy fit because I logically and factually decimated his assertions and statements. He still thinks his opinion is on par with facts and the logic derived from said facts. This is why the OP question unhinges folk like STY, because their minds explode at the very hint they are wrong on any level.

I took STY, our cowardly arm chair Oath Keeper off the ignore list for an honest debate. Clearly, he's still intellectually impotent on the subject ( and still in denial of his pants pissing actions regarding Jan. 6th, where he changed his icon, threw his brethren under the bus and lied/denied all his past bluster). So I can now comfortable put the little POS on permanent ignore.

yeah, ok karen LOL

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Okay then, MOVE. That's one of the few perks of being a citizen in America...if you don't like it, you can leave and no one will stop you (unless you plan to sell military or business secrets to enemy/competitive countries). Outside of that, what you are offering is impossible without another (or several) civil wars. Anything worthwhile requires patients and endurance. Remember, Ghandi and King changed the course of their respective countries without firing a shot or throwing a punch. THAT TOOK GUTS. Bitching without a viable alternative/solution helps no one.

America will happily let us all emigrate. No problem there.
But the good places to go won't let us immigrate. That's the part that the "love it or leave it" idiots don't seem to understand.
And it's pretty fucking easy to understand, too.

If we can't go, we must try to change where we are. My proposal is partition. You may suggest something different. But "love it or leave it" is no answer at all.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Okay then, MOVE. That's one of the few perks of being a citizen in America...if you don't like it, you can leave and no one will stop you

that also works out well for women living in states that don't allow abortion. isn't that awesome how freedom works?

 

[Into the Night]

And neither of my links give credence to your response.

None of your links are the Constitution of the United States.

Okay, you're not really this dumb so you're response is just insipid stubbornness.

LIF

This is why trying to discuss or debate with you becomes pointless after awhile, because you just can't concede you're wrong on any level.

LIF

As you and two other posters point out, carrying that gun in public would have NO effect on your daily routine or lifestyle.

Carrying a gun concealed has NO effect on my daily routine or lifestyle. I carry concealed much of the time.

So this leads to another question...given that facts show an INCREASE in accidental shootings or gun related crimes with CCW,

What facts? Oh BTW, a fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth.

why should I be at risk of a stray bullet or crossfire because you have some psychological or political axe to grind?

The only axes I grind are the ones I am going to use.

 

[Into the Night]

You do waste a LOT of time and space expressing your ignorant opinions as if they are fact.

The right to self defense is inherent. That's a fact. The Constitution of the United States exists. That's a fact. People still support it. That's a fact.

I'll just take them down by the numbers with a little logical review:

You deny logic. Logic isn't a review.

1. "Inherent" from what?

Inherent simply because you are living, breathing being. You have the right to defend yourself.

Where do you think you "inherit" any right(s) under USA law?

Guess you don't know what 'inherent' means.

Hint: Groups of people map out LAWS that include RIGHTS and get the masses to agree upon them.

Rights do not come from laws.

That's how we live together without consistently trying to kill, steal or enslave each other.

Yet people kill, steal, and try to enslave another.

Without such documentation (Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments), any yahoo can claim the right to anything...and if they have the physical means to get away with it, they YOU have no right to disagree. THAT'S HOW ANIMALS DO IT. Capice'?

No right comes from any piece of paper. The Constitution also includes the Bill of Rights and all other amendments. Since you specifically brought up the Constitution, read Article I and the 2nd amendment.

2. History proves you wrong.

Quite the opposite, actually.

Go to your local library and learn how there were rules and regulations by colonial states regarding possession and up keep of weapons.

Presentism fallacy. Discard of the Constitution of the United States. Attempt to change history. The right of self defense is inherent. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon.

As time progressed, State & federal laws were passed were full military weapons could NOT be owned by civilians.

Unconstitutional.

The 1994 AWB banned specific weapons

Unconstitutional.

..and despite all of this a plethora or revolvers, hunting rifles, semi-auto guns and rifles, shot guns were available to the general public. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

.....and unconstitutional.

3. See #2. Apropos to that; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

Unconstitutional.

4. You may have all of that at your HOME...

I do. It's where I live. It's where I use it.

you do NOT carry it with you in a large backpack while going to work or food shopping or general traveling.

I don't need to carry it.

Don't lie and say you do, because no job (commercial or federal) or restaurant or business office that I know of would allow it.

I own my own business. My official policy is that if an employee wants to carry a gun to work, they can. I ask no questions. I don't need to. Every employee here understands that other employees are quite possibly armed. I have a good team. They do amazing work.

And THAT'S the problem with pushing a CCW freebie in a place like NYC,

Not a problem.

because it increases the chance of a simple argument becoming a shoot out instead of a fist fight.

No, it doesn't.

That can catch innocents with stray bullets or in the cross fire.

You would rather they become victims of thugs with guns, eh?

And it increases the chance of cops shooting the "good guy with a gun" when responding to an active crime scene.

What cops?

6. Ahh, but we as a society were dealing with it... Despite the fact of the following that folk like you want to ignore: https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/

https://www.bet.com/article/eokrmr/black-man-kaun-green-disarm-shooter-shot-by-police

Special pleading fallacy.

What the SCOTUS ruling does is opens the potential for an increase in such incidences, let alone stray bullet and cross fire hits by arguments escalating into gun fights.

So? I carry a gun. I don't worry about it.

7. See #6 for a reality check.

Buzzword fallacy. You still don't know what that word means.

8. If you have people trying to run each other over, throwing things at each other mid traffic or getting out of cars and fist fighting, that's road rage.

It's also illegal. Quite possibly, one may use a weapon such as a baseball bat, knife, or a gun. I don't worry about it. I carry a gun.

Now add a gun in the mix.

Already there.

How stupid is it to potentially let some hot head have a gun in such an incidence, and then say, "well, give everyone a gun to protect themselves".? Ever here of the old saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?l Now you're not stupid, so don't waste time and space with stubborn repetition of "good guy with a gun" mantra, because it doesn't work here.

Gun Free Zones don't work, dude. See the recent school shootings as proof.

9. A childish and selfish response, clearly showing an indifference to fellow citizen's safety.

LIF. This is YOUR problem, attempting to ban or limit guns.

What is frightening is that YOU (allegedly) carry a gun in public with some fantasy of a Wild West or a TV cop show shoot out with you as the victor and no bystander casualties.

No fantasies. If someone starts shooting at innocents, I will shoot back. I will try to save those innocents...even if it's you.

I know you will ignore, deny and defy the facts and logic of 1-8....

No logic was used. No facts were used.

I only hope you're just an armchair troll blowing smoke, because if not you're another statistic (or cause of such) waiting to happen.

LIF. You are describing yourself because you refuse to defend yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

Who said it did? The SCOTUS does have the power to change the way the Constitution is interpreted for each case brought before it.

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution. SCOTUS does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States, which you discard.

 

[Into the Night]

Anything you can't disprove or factually contradict you label a "fallacy"

The Constitution is a fact. It exists. You can't just discard it.

....a subjective term that only the person you see in the mirror is buying into.

A fallacy is not a subjective term (like climate). A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to an arithmetic error in mathematics. Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics. You can't just discard it.

And it's obvious that you don't accept facts....

Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means.

you just state silly revisions to suit your opinions. Sad.

The Constitution of the United States is not an opinion, dude. It exists. It's law. It's still supported by people.

And the question is even more prudent: what can you do that you couldn't do before you could carry a gun 24/7?

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

translation: ITN couldn't not rationally, logically or factually refute, disprove or debunk my previous post....he just doesn't like having his beliefs effectively countered.

Word stuffing. Not what RQAA means. It means Repetitive Question Already Answered. You keep asking the same question mindlessly, even though it's already been answered.

 

[Into the Night]

Stop lying, because you cannot produce one on the books case of these alleged violations.

RQAA.

The laws are separate and specific in what they effect. If you can prove otherwise, do so. This is why the SCOTUS law ranks up there with the historic Plessey vs. Ferguson bonehead ruling.

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution. SCOTUS does not have authority to write any law.

 

[Into the Night]

1. Typo: "reserve". and WTF do you think that gun purchase rules differ in each state? I said REGULATE, NOT BAN.

By 'regulate' you mean 'ban' or 'limit'. That is unconstitutional. Don't play word games.

2. How is it unconstitutional if you are a licensed gun owner and that weapon is in your home?

A license to carry a gun is unconstitutional.

Nothing in the Constitution about walking around strapped 24/7 with a handgun.

The 2nd amendment.

No "interpretation" can logically assert that.

The 2nd amendment.

State and federal law susses that out,

Unconstitutional.

which is why the SCOTUS law essentially impedes on State law.

SCOTUS does not have authority to write any law. Any State law that bans or limits any weapon is unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

translation: STY is having a hissy fit because I logically and factually decimated his assertions and statements. He still thinks his opinion is on par with facts and the logic derived from said facts. This is why the OP question unhinges folk like STY, because their minds explode at the very hint they are wrong on any level.

I took STY, our cowardly arm chair Oath Keeper off the ignore list for an honest debate. Clearly, he's still intellectually impotent on the subject ( and still in denial of his pants pissing actions regarding Jan. 6th, where he changed his icon, threw his brethren under the bus and lied/denied all his past bluster). So I can now comfortable put the little POS on permanent ignore.

Word stuffing. You won't get away with blatant lies like this.

 

[Taichiliberal]

None of your links are the Constitution of the United States.

LIF

LIF

Carrying a gun concealed has NO effect on my daily routine or lifestyle. I carry concealed much of the time.

What facts? Oh BTW, a fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth.

The only axes I grind are the ones I am going to use.

Your denial of documentation just shows the reading audience your stupidity.

Quit wasting time and space acting the fool and just answer the question; As you and two other posters point out, carrying that gun in public would have NO effect on your daily routine or lifestyle. So this leads to another question...given that facts show an INCREASE in accidental shootings or gun related crimes with CCW, why should I be at risk of a stray bullet or crossfire because you have some psychological or political axe to grind?

 

[Taichiliberal]

The right to self defense is inherent. That's a fact. The Constitution of the United States exists. That's a fact. People still support it. That's a fact.

You deny logic. Logic isn't a review.

Inherent simply because you are living, breathing being. You have the right to defend yourself.

Guess you don't know what 'inherent' means.

Rights do not come from laws.

Yet people kill, steal, and try to enslave another.

No right comes from any piece of paper. The Constitution also includes the Bill of Rights and all other amendments. Since you specifically brought up the Constitution, read Article I and the 2nd amendment.

Quite the opposite, actually.

Presentism fallacy. Discard of the Constitution of the United States. Attempt to change history. The right of self defense is inherent. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon.

Unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional.

.....and unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional.

I do. It's where I live. It's where I use it.

I don't need to carry it.

I own my own business. My official policy is that if an employee wants to carry a gun to work, they can. I ask no questions. I don't need to. Every employee here understands that other employees are quite possibly armed. I have a good team. They do amazing work.

Not a problem.

No, it doesn't.

You would rather they become victims of thugs with guns, eh?

What cops?

Special pleading fallacy.

So? I carry a gun. I don't worry about it.

Buzzword fallacy. You still don't know what that word means.

It's also illegal. Quite possibly, one may use a weapon such as a baseball bat, knife, or a gun. I don't worry about it. I carry a gun.

Already there.

Gun Free Zones don't work, dude. See the recent school shootings as proof.

LIF. This is YOUR problem, attempting to ban or limit guns.

No fantasies. If someone starts shooting at innocents, I will shoot back. I will try to save those innocents...even if it's you.

No logic was used. No facts were used.

LIF. You are describing yourself because you refuse to defend yourself.

As the reader can see, when he can't logically or factually defend his position, ITN babbles his usual neologisms that include the word "fallacy" and then creates a fantasy world where he's a business owner (convenient) that will allow his employees to come to work armed and carrying survival back packs.

ITN doesn't directly answer questions or deal with any linked facts.... he just squawks moot points and his personal opinion, supposition and conjecture, because in his mind....they are the equivalent of historical facts and real life, current documentation. Just follow the chronology of the posts, folks. ITN has a LOT of time on his hands, but yet he can't carry a logical, fact based debate with honest, logical, fact based responses/exchanges.

I took him off the ignore list to promote an honest, rational debate on a question I put forth. Since ITN and 2 other responders have stated that allowing automatic CCW for gun owners wouldn't alter their lives one iota, it begs the question as to why should the rest of us live with the risk of getting hit by increased gun shootings from road rage, basic argumentative confrontations? More to the point, why increase the risk of a good guy with a gun getting shot by the cops answering a call?

Again, folk like ITN just deny or trivialize that these things happen and trundle on so their ideological minds can be soothed. The rest of us will just have to live with the increased risk.

So given ITN's stance and his demonstrated intellectual dishonesty, I have no choice but to permanently ban him from my threads, and keep him on the ignore list. Saves time, space and effort.

 

[Taichiliberal]

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution. SCOTUS does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States, which you discard.

Are you fucking stupid or what? Again, to your first sentence I NEVER SAID IT DID. GOT THAT, GENIUS? And you demonstrate just how ignorant/delusional you are as to the role of the SCOTUS. Had you READ Article 3 of the Constitution, you would have noted the following:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Laws are made within the framework of the Constitution, and the SCOTUS makes final decisions on contention regarding law, you nitwit. An example for your education:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_06-01-09.html

Now, you're stupid enough to just keep parroting your opinion as if it's fact and you ignore what you don't like. I don't deal with such stupidity as yours for long. I'm done with you after this.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Word stuffing. Not what RQAA means. It means Repetitive Question Already Answered. You keep asking the same question mindlessly, even though it's already been answered.

ITN's typical babbling, self deluding lies and neologisims when he can't logically or factually disprove what others say or prove his point. I'm done with his nonsense.

 

[Taichiliberal]

RQAA.

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution. SCOTUS does not have authority to write any law.

See folks, this idiot essentially states that the SCOTUS has no true purpose and cannot effect anything regarding laws within the framework of the Constitution. I point out his stupidity in another response, but as you can see, ITN is just too proud and dumb to concede a point. I leave him to his neologisms and babbling