A simple question for gun rights folk.

[Taichiliberal]

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

A license to carry a gun is unconstitutional.

The 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment.

Unconstitutional.

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

I'll just pull the rug out from under this idiots babbling. Note the following:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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.


This is the basis for why trying to have a rational, fact based and logical discussion with ITN is impossible....the simpleton prefers his own version of reality and definitions to what actually is.

In his mind, "regulation" ONLY means banning and limiting. Obviously, a dictionary isn't available to him. Hope springs eternal: From Merriam-Webster: REGULATE: : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2): to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
regulate the pressure of a tire

And of course, regulation of any sort in ITN's world is unconstitutional (at least when he wants it to be). This is why I'm done with this idiot, and will now ban him from my threads and put him on permanent ignore.

 

[Taichiliberal]

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

One idiot picking up the gauntlet for another idiot...both saying nothing but talking loud. Off to the ignore list and permanent ban from my threads for ITN...a waste of time and space.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

The Constitution of the United States is the sole reference of the Constitution of the United States. That IS the documentation.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Since you obviously deny the existence of the Constitution of the United States, that is YOUR OWN problem! You can't project YOUR problem on me or anybody else. LIF.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you fucking stupid or what? Again, to your first sentence I NEVER SAID IT DID. GOT THAT, GENIUS.

Yes you did, liar. You used the Supreme Court to justify changing the Constitution. They don't have that authority.

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.

No mention of any authority to change or interpret the Constitution.

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:

You tried to justify SCOTUS making law. They have no authority to do that.

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

False authority fallacy.

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.

Cliche fallacy. Argument of the stick fallacy.
Censorship doesn't work, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Word stuffing. I never said any such thing. You're a liar, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

I'll just pull the rug out from under this idiots babbling. Note the following:


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


This is the basis for why trying to have a rational, fact based and logical discussion with ITN is impossible....the simpleton prefers his own version of reality and definitions to what actually is.

In his mind, "regulation" ONLY means banning and limiting. Obviously, a dictionary isn't available to him. Hope springs eternal: From Merriam-Webster: REGULATE: : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2): to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
regulate one's habits
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
regulate the pressure of a tire

And of course, regulation of any sort in ITN's world is unconstitutional (at least when he wants it to be). This is why I'm done with this idiot, and will now ban him from my threads and put him on permanent ignore.

Argument of the Stick fallacy. It won't work, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

One idiot picking up the gauntlet for another idiot...both saying nothing but talking loud. Off to the ignore list and permanent ban from my threads for ITN...a waste of time and space.

Argument of the Stick fallacy.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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.

Now you're lying to support your assertions....if you're a regular person with no criminal record and with a viable skill set (i.e., what you do for a living) any comparable nation will let you in (assuming you meet the language, laws and rules standards). I'm not saying "love it or leave it" a'la' 1968 hard hat fashion, I telling YOU who says it all going to hell in hand basket and offer no viable solution, then piss on any offered one ... that you can leave for greener pastures. Your "partition" suggestion is absurd...that was already tried, it was called the Civil War. As it stands, the individual states depend on each other in trade, commerce, resources and military defense. So your proposal dies on the drawing board. Unless you've got something better, then relocation may be the thing for you, because I for one am not interested in living through a 21st century version of a Civil War. Like I said, the way of Ghandi and King took GUTS. Seems a lot of folk don't have that. A pity.