Jump to content

58 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Timeline
Posted

Should they also keep their guns while in the joint?

damn dude take a pill. you seem to losing your senses, at least your common sense.

first it was: 2 different things. employment and gun control.

now its: 3 different things. rights, privileges, and penalties.

7yqZWFL.jpg
Posted

Pointing out obvious hypocrisy is butthurt? I see.

Whining (and whining and whining and whining some more) about losing is the BEST demonstration of butthurt.

There's no constitutional right to purchase a firearm either.

Not what the courts said. Still hurting? :rofl:

It shouldn't. Felons should be able to vote.

Felons can't purchase firearms. But when they illegally try and it is referred for prosecution the libs ignore that violation because they care more about felons than dying children.

 

i don't get it.

Posted (edited)

It's not a far reach. We're told that universal background checks will be effective to fight illegal employment but not to fight illegal firearm purchases and sales. That makes no sense.

Demonstrated by 77,000 failed background checks that were unprosecuted in 2009 alone. Background checks aren't being used to fight anything. Which makes them a waste of time. Go cuddle with the criminals you love to defend or find a tree to hug and stop whining about the wishes and rights of law abiding people. It's pathetic.

Edited by himher

 

i don't get it.

Filed: Timeline
Posted
Not what the courts said.

Where in the Constitution is the right to purchase a firearm mentioned? And which court upheld that right in what decision?

Felons can't purchase firearms.

Yes they can. They do it every single day. And nobody would ever know because there is no background check required if they purchase that firearm from a private seller at a gun show or if they purchase it online. No prosecutor would ever know that they purchased a firearm because no record of that transaction exists.

Filed: Timeline
Posted
Demonstrated by 77,000 failed background checks that were unprosecuted in 2009 alone.

These are 77,000 transactions that weren't completed because the buyer failed to pass the required background check. If there were required background checks for all transactions, then these 77,000 people would not be buying firearms. Instead, they can just go across the street to the next gun show or go online and buy all the firearms they want because there are no background checks required in those transactions. Background checks can work but they must be universal. What we have now is so fcuking silly it's unbelievable. It's like requiring ID checks for alcohol purchases in at the liquor store but not at the ball park.

Posted (edited)

These are 77,000 transactions that weren't completed because the buyer failed to pass the required background check. If there were required background checks for all transactions, then these 77,000 people would not be buying firearms. Instead, they can just go across the street to the next gun show or go online and buy all the firearms they want because there are no background checks required in those transactions. Background checks can work but they must be universal. What we have now is so fcuking silly it's unbelievable. It's like requiring ID checks for alcohol purchases in at the liquor store but not at the ball park.

Because the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to purchase them. Stop whining. Good grief. Focus on the thousands of criminals that are already referred for prosecutiona and stay out of our personal lives.

Edited by himher

 

i don't get it.

Posted (edited)

Which court made that ruling? Can you quote it?

(laughing) Actually sitting on the winning side comfortably exempts me from the requirement to quote anything. But hopefully you can read.

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

Here is where it was later applied to the individual states. It's not storytime and you ain't a child so you can peruse it yourself. Skip the arguments and go to the rulings and justification for the rulings.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Some notes from settled cases:

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

NOW: Go find something to soothe your worn-out butt and while you're out pick up a pacifier or something else to suck on so that we don't have to listen to your e-whining.

UPDATE: Guns and ammo are still flying off the shelf which makes your job OH so much harder - but makes our homes safer, even from our own government. As the Supreme court says it should.

Edited by himher

 

i don't get it.

Filed: Timeline
Posted

(laughing) Actually sitting on the winning side comfortably exempts me from the requirement to quote anything. But hopefully you can read.

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

Here is where it was later applied to the individual states. It's not storytime and you ain't a child so you can peruse it yourself. Skip the arguments and go to the rulings and justification for the rulings.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Some notes from settled cases:

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

NOW: Go find something to soothe your worn-out butt and while you're out pick up a pacifier or something else to suck on so that we don't have to listen to your e-whining.

UPDATE: Guns and ammo are still flying off the shelf which makes your job OH so much harder - but makes our homes safer, even from our own government. As the Supreme court says it should.

So you have absolutely no court case to quote in support of your ridiculous claim that there is a constitutional right to purchase firearms. Thank you for confirming that.

You could have done that in a short sentence.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...