Question for Gun-Cravens: Why Render Law-Abiding Citizens Defenseless?

[IBDaMann]

I explained it to you guys and showed what a former chief justice said about gun decisions

The Constitution was written in plain English, not legalese and We the People determine what it means. I'm surprised you didn't quote a "climate scientist" or other member of your clergy as to what the Constitution reads, as though We the People are too stupid to read. Leftists think ALL people are as debilitatingly stupid as they are.

Nordberg, I can read English. I know what the Constitution reads. If you have any questions, you know where to find me.

 

[IBDaMann]

We have to do something about these assault knives, Dammit!

The correct term is "assault cutlery" which includes the tactical roast forks and combat sporks. We need to revisit the issue of high-capacity blades because the founders never foresaw carbon-steel.

 

[RB 60]

The correct term is "assault cutlery" which includes the tactical roast forks and combat sporks. We need to revisit the issue of high-capacity blades because the founders never foresaw carbon-steel.

First, we must register them. Once we know who has them and what they have, we can go after them.
Steak knives have no other purpose than to cut meat. There is no need for these killing machines in public or private.

Most metallic knives are stainless, and most stainless steels will pass through a metal detector. We must be vigilant. .

 

[IBDaMann]

First, we must register them. Once we know who has them and what they have, we can go after them.
Steak knives have no other purpose than to cut meat. There is no need for these killing machines in public or private.

Most metallic knives are stainless, and most stainless steels will pass through a metal detector. We must be vigilant. .

I'm thinking that maybe all we need is to require all blades be permacoated with safety-rubber to ensure no knife accidentally or intentionally cuts anyone or anything. Forks would require all tips/points (even "rounded" ones) be covered. I'm thinking we could score a political win by throwing the knife-nuts a bone and saying that spoons don't need to be covered at all, as long as they are shorter than five inches.

But we definitely need to get these knife-crazies who call themselves "chefs" off the streets. They sit there in "knife lust," stockpiling knives in their "kitchens." Don't even ask about the "sushi chefs."

 

[RB 60]

I'm thinking that maybe all we need is to require all blades be permacoated with safety-rubber to ensure no knife accidentally or intentionally cuts anyone or anything. Forks would require all tips/points (even "rounded" ones) be covered. I'm thinking we could score a political win by throwing the knife-nuts a bone and saying that spoons don't need to be covered at all, as long as they are shorter than five inches.

But we definitely need to get these knife-crazies who call themselves "chefs" off the streets. They sit there in "knife lust," stockpiling knives in their "kitchens." Don't even ask about the "sushi chefs."

Maybe if we forced manufacturers to no longer make knives with pointed ends and coat them. Ends must be square (90 deg) with the spine of the blade and must be 1/2 inch or more, depending on size of blade.

We must regulate how many knives a person can own. And eradicate (the term liberals use for conservatives) those crazy knife wielding chefs. And no concealed carry permits, not even for pocket knives.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Maybe if we forced manufacturers to no longer make knives with pointed ends and coat them. Ends must be square (90 deg) with the spine of the blade and must be 1/2 inch or more, depending on size of blade.

We must regulate how many knives a person can own. And eradicate (the term liberals use for conservatives) those crazy knife wielding chefs. And no concealed carry permits, not even for pocket knives.

require safety guards on all knives as well, unless they are in use.

 

[RB 60]

require safety guards on all knives as well, unless they are in use.

And safety glasses.

 

[Nordberg]

The Constitution was written in plain English, not legalese and We the People determine what it means. I'm surprised you didn't quote a "climate scientist" or other member of your clergy as to what the Constitution reads, as though We the People are too stupid to read. Leftists think ALL people are as debilitatingly stupid as they are.

Nordberg, I can read English. I know what the Constitution reads. If you have any questions, you know where to find me.

Actually, that is not true. There have been great debates over the Constitution since it was written. Great legal minds have debated. SCOTUS has had lots of 5-4 votes over important subjects. There have been volumes written about the Constitution. To think. all they had to do was talk to you.
You ae a sad case.

 

[IBDaMann]

Actually, that is not true.

You led with the word "actually" which tells me that you are going to be totally dishonest ... so let's get to it.

There have been great debates over the Constitution since it was written. Great legal minds have debated. SCOTUS has had lots of 5-4 votes over important subjects. There have been volumes written about the Constitution.

Yes, and you just rambled out a lengthy pivot that has nothing to do with what you were supposed to be showing, which is that what I wrote was somehow not true. You haven't even touched any of my points.

Just some trivia for you ... there have been great debates over the Lord of the Rings since it was written. Great literary minds have debated. There have been volumes written and YouTube videos created about the Lord of the Rings. Wild, huh?

To think. all they had to do was talk to you.

Make no mistake, at any point in my life, "they" certainly could have, and perhaps should have, consulted with me and I would have ensured the correct reading of the English language, as unnecessary as it obviously should have been but apparently wasn't.

I don't think you have to worry about anyone bothering you for your read on any matters. Being a leftist gets you off that hook on a permanent basis.

 

[Concart]

The Constitution was written in plain English, not legalese and We the People determine what it means. I'm surprised you didn't quote a "climate scientist" or other member of your clergy as to what the Constitution reads, as though We the People are too stupid to read. Leftists think ALL people are as debilitatingly stupid as they are.

Nordberg, I can read English. I know what the Constitution reads. If you have any questions, you know where to find me.

The duly selected members of the Judiciary decide that. You didn't know that, genius?

 

[IBDaMann]

The duly selected members of the Judiciary decide that.

They do not. Have you simply not read the Constitution or can you not read the Constitution?

We the People decide what it means, and if we cease liking what it means, we have our elected representatives in the States undergo the process to amend it so that we like what it means.

Hint: I already know what you are going to mindlessly quip in error. Before you do so, read the relevant section of the Constitution and be prepared to point directly to the text that gives any court the power to interpret the law. I will specifically need to see the word "interpret" along with text that gives the courts the power to "interpret" the law. For your convenience I will post that text here:

US Constitution, Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
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.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Bring it on, baby, bring it on.

 

[Nordberg]

They do not. Have you simply not read the Constitution or can you not read the Constitution?

We the People decide what it means, and if we cease liking what it means, we have our elected representatives in the States undergo the process to amend it so that we like what it means.

Hint: I already know what you are going to mindlessly quip in error. Before you do so, read the relevant section of the Constitution and be prepared to point directly to the text that gives any court the power to interpret the law. I will specifically need to see the word "interpret" along with text that gives the courts the power to "interpret" the law. For your convenience I will post that text here:



Bring it on, baby, bring it on.

You have the ability to slant words. I do not know if that is deliberate, but it certainly looks that way. I explained the 2 nd Amendment to you and it was too tough for you to understand. I wish it were complicated, but it is not, The 2nd opens with an explanation of why guns would be necessary. You discard the opening words and concentrate on the few in the 2nd part. That is dishonest. That explain the 2nd half and guns are not necessary for the existence of a free state. That negates the 2nd half. And, guns have been abridged. That is part of our history and it could save us from the daily mass shootings and the terrorizing of confused and terrified children.
Your side is wrong and poorly argues. In your case, you pontificate badly.

 

[Concart]

They do not. Have you simply not read the Constitution or can you not read the Constitution?

We the People decide what it means, and if we cease liking what it means, we have our elected representatives in the States undergo the process to amend it so that we like what it means.

Hint: I already know what you are going to mindlessly quip in error. Before you do so, read the relevant section of the Constitution and be prepared to point directly to the text that gives any court the power to interpret the law. I will specifically need to see the word "interpret" along with text that gives the courts the power to "interpret" the law. For your convenience I will post that text here:



Bring it on, baby, bring it on.

Marbury versus Madison. Read it. Next?

 

[Lightbringer]

Marbury versus Madison. Read it. Next?

Good reply. It just kills me that some people still make the argument that the division of power between the branches of government requires the courts to be powerless. Even if the word of law said that...which it didn't, the spirit of the Constitution would be violated by having toothless courts.

 

[IBDaMann]

Good reply.

Nope. It was a stupid reply, as was yours.

It just kills me that some people still make the argument that the division of power between the branches of government requires the courts to be powerless.

Nice pivot. How does that affect the price of rice in China?

Even if the word of law said that...which it didn't, the spirit of the Constitution would be violated by having toothless courts.

Another statement that says nothing. I posted Article III which spells out the powers of the Judicial branch. "Legislate" is not in there, nor is "interpret" anything. If that makes courts "toothless" then "toothless" they are.

 

[gfm7175]

If nobody has guns, then why do uu need one to defend yourself?

But people DO have guns, right?

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Why do you insist on forcing law-abiding citizens to be totally defenseless before violent crime, while refusing to address criminals and their acts of violence? Bonus question: Why do you always blame those who try to prevent mass shootings whenever you successfully orchestrate a mass shooting via the establishment of yet more defenselessness zones?


Nope. You are the one obsessed with inanimate objects and who projects his obsession onto his political opponents. You, sir, are a gun craven and you are the one who needs professional help.

I am super pro-individual liberty. This is not any sort of inanimate object. I am not the one with a debilitating phobia. You are. Arachnophobes normally avoid spiders; the truly insane try to get spiders outlawed. Normal gun cravens simply avoid guns themselves; the truly insane try to abolish everyone else's right to have just such an inanimate object. You cravens don't try to abolish everyone else's right to have an automobile because you are not car cravens ... you are gun cravens, so you try to eliminate guns from all the law-abiding citizens.

You are truly insane.


Nope. The cause of essentially all mass shootings is twofold:

1. leftists create "defenselessness zones" in which no law-abiding citizen is allowed to defend himself
2. leftists refuse to put in place any method to effectively deal with an active shooter except to fear and panic, which their Global Warming, Climate Change, and Marxism religions teach them is the only authorized response.


Murderers with guns kill people, yes ... but leftists won't lift a finger to prevent murderers from acquiring firearms. Leftists are driven to confiscate firearms only from the law-abiding citizens. Murderers with firearms find it so much easier to kill many more people who are required to be defenseless, thanks to leftists.

Conclusion: leftists really do HATE humanity and just want to see everyone equally dead ... except themselves of course.


Only under the leftist axiom that only murderers are allowed to have guns. Conservatives want everyone to have the ability to deny murderers the option/decision to take lives. All mass shootings occur in leftist-created defenselessness zones. By contrast, there are no mass shootings in bars that are cop hangouts in which everyone is armed.

Leftists are responsible for all of the mass shootings that occur. All of them. Leftists try to blame their political opponents for all mass shootings that leftists create.

Conclusion: leftists really do HATE humanity and just want to see everyone equally dead ... except themselves of course.

Are there any leftists on JPP honest enough to answer the question "Why are leftists driven to force all law-abiding citizens into defenselessness before violent crime?"? Is it because you really HATE humanity that much, or is it because that is what you were told to believe by the people who do your thinking for you?

 

[IBDaMann]

You have the ability to slant words.

Do you mean that I can write in italics? You can as well. Just hit the little button for that.

I do not know if that is deliberate, but it certainly looks that way.

Yes, it's definitely something done deliberately. This sentence is a good example.

I explained the 2 nd Amendment to you ...

You gave me your laughable misinterpretation, that you absorbed from someone else who you allowed to do your thinking for you.

I wish it were complicated, but it is not ...

I get it, if it were complicated, at least you might have a plausible excuse.

The 2nd opens with an explanation of why guns would be necessary.

Incorrect. Only someone who is allergic to individual liberties and to the 2nd Amendment would say that. The 2nd opens by emphasizing the importance of the security of a free state, and why a well-regulated militia is therefore necessary.

Can you really not fucking read? Well, that will have to be my presumption going forward, i.e. that you simply cannot read and that someone else tells you what to regurgitate.

You discard the opening words and concentrate on the few in the 2nd part.

I don't throw out anything; you do. Like most leftists, you are trying to delete the 2nd Amendment so that you can render law-abiding citizens totally defenseless before violent crime, and your preferred method is to pretend that the second half of the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist.

The Nordberg Conjecture: The first half of the 2nd Amendment nullifies the second half.

Brilliant!

That explain the 2nd half and guns are not necessary for the existence of a free state. That negates the 2nd half.

I imagine that the 1st Amendment therefore requires the government to freely express its confiscation of firearms.

it could save us from the daily mass shootings and the terrorizing of confused and terrified children.

The only way to stop this is to stop the leftist creation of defenselessness zones and the huddling of children into them. But leftists such as yourself HATE children, just as you HATE all of humanity, and will never stop cranking out defenselessness zones until every law-abiding citizen everywhere is rendered totally defenseless, especially the children. Then the leftists will disingenuously ask "What are you worried about? Nobody has any guns." When it is mentioned that all of the criminals still have all of their weapons, you will dismissively quip that police will probably teleport to the scene, moments before any crime is committed.

Your side makes a great case.

 

[IBDaMann]

[mindless meme omitted]

How does your terribly unimaginative meme address or rebut anything in the OP?

I can see that you really depend on others to do your thinking for you.

 

[IBDaMann]

[image deleted]