Creepy Condescending Wonka

Or make gun laws that actually have consequences to those that supply criminals with guns. Like arson laws. They may not stop all arsonists but at least the ones that get caught have penalties to face.

But did the arson laws "prevent" the arson? What gun law is not on the books in chicago that can be added that will prevent gun violence? I'm all for BGs etc.. but the social rebellious attitudes still exist with the thugs that get the guns. All the laws are directed at honest gun owners like you and i.. when will the issues that address thugs get addressed?

Consistent gun laws across the country will help prevent needless deaths by guns and criminals having guns. Plain and simple. As I said...Chicago is an island surrounded by loose gun laws. Do you blame the girl for getting raped by the circle of rapists around her too? The laws I think should be enacted effect all gun buyers ...people like you and me ....and people that are not as nice. They buy guns and sell them or lose them or....whatever. I'm fine with more laws. I'm waiting 30-60 days for a new pistol permit. If suddenly I had to do more things like pay an extra 10 bucks and wait an extra 10 days or register it or insure it or whatever because it would decrease crime...great. I'm all for it.

Bro... LA is surrounded by strict gun laws... So is Baltimore, DC, etc etc. So that really don't factor in. We agree on cutting gun violence.. but all laws will effect or inconvenience legal buyers and owners. Nothing addresses the lawless anti authority attitudes that are responsible. It's a ploy to say we need gun laws for "mass killings" when they are the small fraction of all gun violence. Almost 3000 in the community organizers home city alone. . Just this year. Add in the other thug laden cities and mass killings look like a crumb on a cake.

This what will happen when citizens are stripped of their rights! Good one bro!

Bro gun laws need to be consistent across all states

By the way when you say
"Nothing addresses the lawless anti authority attitudes that are responsible."

You mean all the legal gun buyers that bleed guns into other criminal hands? Because I'm with you. And my laws would address them.

Nope. . Don't mean them. . Not that they're innocent.

If I am a low life.. and I offer you a stolen gun.. or gun you should not have.. would you take it to use in a crime? Of course not. Why not? So why do the street thugs accept the guns? Thug Attitude ? Gives then power? Assist in criminal activity?

Who and how and when will that be addressed? Laws are for good people.. bad people don't care bro.. and all these race baiting social justice ass clowns do nothing about it.. but get richer. What has Al Sharpton done to fix that attitude?

Your logic suggests every law should be abolished because it hasn't eradicated the relevant crime. You don't seem to understand that laws can curb crime and deter and prevent.

So what would you do exactly if you were sitting in your home and an armed intruder broke in and threatened you? Ask him to please stop? Sit in the corner and cry until they left and hope they don't kill you? Maybe scream real loud?

Biden had the answer.. walk out on the porch and just rack a round in that Remington 870 and that's gonna scare them off. Lmao! Maybe I should sell recordings of a racking 12 gage to sr. Citizens and other constantly victimized citizens. Peeps this ignorant to trust calling 911 to prevent a crime?

Or just have a rape victim pee themselves and that should just scare the daylights out of their attackers and they'll be left alone.

Pathetic logic.. leading the nation.

So now you think I don't own a gun or have no security or a brain? Your reply has no understanding of my statement. Where and why do you make these extreme conclusions.

I didn't say you didn't own a gun or that you are dumb. I was giving a "what if" scenario. If you take away the ability for responsible citizens to protect themselves by having the fire power, you are limiting their chances to fight back against anyone who feels the need to invade their home, etc. Gun laws are not constitutional and more restrictions is just a power grab by a tyrannical government.

No gun laws are constitutional?

Correct. None of the gun laws are constitutional.

And you're right, the 2nd amendment says Arms which is short for armament(military grade weapons and equipment). And the founding fathers lived in a time of cannons and explosives capable of "undermining" a castle wall. So if a citizen could afford a nuke and its delivery system it would be constitutional. Thing is, it would be out of reach for 99% of the world's individuals. Let alone the US's.

Kids have rights, but there are common sense clauses in the constitution that would cover that and legislation for it would be redundant and unconstitutional

And no, the Constitution is written in plain English and isn't subjective at all.

If you're not okay with citizens owning Armament, leave.

And no, felons not being able to own arms is unconstitutional as well. The 2nd amendment is God given, not granted by any government to be able to take away.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the beef is with laws, so...

"I'll concede knowledge of firearms as a prime indicator of intelligence" Said the guy who doesn't know anything about guns. You have a lack of knowledge with guns, so you perceive a lack of intelligence with those who own them? lol Okay...

You kind of go off on tangents later on, but murder is illegal because of morality. Duh.

It's cool that you don't like/appreciate the American God given rights like the 2nd Amendment. I would suggest migration to a country that doesn't have that freedom instead of trying to violate the rights of more intelligent Americans. :{

Is the Constitution is not subjective, why do we have a Supreme Court? If you're claiming to get your rights from a fictional deity, those rights are tenuous indeed. I know why murder is illegal and believe it should be. I also know murder laws "don't work" in the same way gun laws don't. That is a poor argument not to have those laws. However one interprets the 2nd Amendment, no right is unlimited.

Apparently our conversation has reached its limits on this meme, so have to answer from here.

As far as felons go, they forfeit their constitutional rights when they committed a violent crime, so it should not apply to them.

As for citizens owning fully automatic weapons, I believe we have that right as stated in the 2nd amendment. It was written to enable the people to be able to fight back against a rogue government. It's very specific in that regards. Some liberal argue that the 2nd amendment was meant for muskets, but that is wrong. Is the government limited to muskets? No, they are not. We are allowed to fight back with equal fire power, as is stated in the constitution.

Laws prohibiting felons or children from having guns are still gun laws, so you concede some gun laws are constitutional. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about fighting a rogue government. Treason, however, was mentioned specifically. I don't go with the musket idea, but those who argue the meaning of the Constitution cannot change should, in the interest of consistency, be musket people. The Framers wanted a civilian army, not a professional one: that was the motivation behind the 2nd Amendment. They wanted these civilian citizens to have access to weapons (keep) and to be able to use them when called upon (bear). Neither hunting nor personal protection were part of their motivation. Wouldn't we need nukes to meet your "equal firepower" criteria?

"You said it was in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is a stand alone document drafted to declare our independence from England. It has no legal standing otherwise. Most of the Founders believed in a god, but they also took care to protect our nation from the religious strife caused by religious/government entanglements. Iran is nice if it's a theocracy you crave."

The DoI IS apart of the Constitution. Duh. It's always been considered apart of the Constitution as well.

It's not a law, but the philosophy of America. And our laws come from that philosophy. So it might as well be viewed as law.

And the First amendment gives us the right to choose what God we believe in, but doesn't protect atheism since it's not a religion but the lack thereof.

You seem to think America is supposed to be separate from God when it's founded on belief in It.

Again, China has a government that has an official atheist stance. Go there if you want freedom from America's belief in God. :{

I'm no longer interested in this discussion.

"I'm no longer interested in this discussion."

Well, I hope for your sake, if you're a citizen of the US, that you exercise your God given rights and don't allow men to tell you what you can do with those rights. :{

The government does not have the right to restrict any gun laws (or making gun laws as it is.)

Why just guns? The Constitution says "arms." Yet, I'm restricted from buying nuclear warheads. What gives??? So, a law prohibiting 2 year olds from operating Uzis would be unconstitutional?

A child does not have rights the way adults do. A two year old firing off an uzie isn't covered by the constitution and would just be a stupid thing to allow happen. And we don't need nuclear warheads as a citizen, but a fully automatic is a completely different story.

The Constitution has no "need" provision, plus that is quite subjective. You might not want to make that your argument. I do not think a citizen needs an automatic weapon, nor any gun for that matter. Prohibiting felons from owning guns is a "gun law." Is that one okay? Some states require melting point and drop/accidental misfire testing to protect you from unsafe weapons.

"Is the Constitution is not subjective, why do we have a Supreme Court? If you're claiming to get your rights from a fictional deity, those rights are tenuous indeed. I know why murder is illegal and believe it should be. I also know murder laws "don't work" in the same way gun laws don't. That is a poor argument not to have those laws. However one interprets the 2nd Amendment, no right is unlimited."

We have a supreme court to handle cases about the constitution yes, but not to restrict the 2nd amendment though. You must think that's all they do.

"The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government." This doesn't mean that they can infringe the 2nd amendment.

If you think God is fictional that's on YOUR soul, not anyone else. But the US is founded on the belief in God. The rights in the Constitution are also stated to be given to the citizens by God. If you don't like that, leave.

How are the rights weaker for being from God? They would be indestructible if they're form God but alterable if by men. Are you simple minded?

What do you mean by "I also know murder laws "don't work" in the same way gun laws don't. That is a poor argument not to have those laws."? I'm not following what you are referring to in MY response to you.

And your last bit of "However one interprets the 2nd Amendment, no right is unlimited." is absolutely incorrect.

The 2nd amendment is an unbreakable law that grants citizens the right of self defense with any weapon. Meaning the government has no right to tell you what you can use for self defense.

Again, if you don't like the country's constitution, leave. Most other countries don't have the rights we have. Either that, or stop being an ingrate. :{

"The rights in the Constitution are also stated to be given to the citizens by God. If you don't like that, leave." Could you elaborate? God is not mentioned in the Constitution.

We have the rule of law in this country. Your beliefs or "relationship" with a deity are irrelevant to the law. There is no debate to be had if you reject this notion.

""The rights in the Constitution are also stated to be given to the citizens by God. If you don't like that, leave." Could you elaborate? God is not mentioned in the Constitution.

We have the rule of law in this country. Your beliefs or "relationship" with a deity are irrelevant to the law. There is no debate to be had if you reject this notion."

lol Actually, God the Creator is mentioned right in the beginning with the DoI: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The rule of law is based on natural law though and is given by the Creator.

So, just because you choose to not believe in God, doesn't mean this country isn't founded on the belief in God, or that God doesn't exist.

You can say It's fictional all you want. You're foolish to give up your God given rights though.

And you can claim there is no debate if I believe in God or that the Founding Fathers did and stated that our rights are God given. It just shows how you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than contempt for God and theists.

If you don't like that America is founded on the belief in God, leave. I hear China's government is officially atheist. See how you like it there. :{

You said it was in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is a stand alone document drafted to declare our independence from England. It has no legal standing otherwise. Most of the Founders believed in a god, but they also took care to protect our nation from the religious strife caused by religious/government entanglements. Iran is nice if it's a theocracy you crave.

gun laws are supposed to remain within the confines of the constitution.. as are ALL laws.

Agreed. But no freedom is unlimited. I was pushing back against Spurs contention that any and all gun laws are de facto unconstitutional.

This seems like you are getting angry at Obama (I'm not him btw). Maybe you want to answer if you think there should be a limit on any type of armament? Tetsuo doesn't have the ability to answer that one.

Are you saying I can't share an opinion with someone else? As if all my opinions need to be original? The man in the video, Steven Crowder, shares my opinion because you explains what the 2nd amendment really means. If you don't agree with it, that's your prerogative.

So answer my question without leading me on a breadcrumb trail of links. Just simply answer it. Easy right? I guess not for you.

I don't normally do this, but here's a link to a YouTube video that really goes into detail about the second amendment and what it really means. And before you say something like, "it leads me to a right-winged nut job channel," just watch the entire video. It has a link to the leftist side of the argument, as well; even though the leftist side is completely incorrect.

I would go into a lot more detail here, but it's kind of difficult to do so on this site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrcR3guGG0

Why can't anyone just answer my question though? Is it not possible to have your own opinion and not rely on someone else?

No, I don't believe in any type of limit. You should be able to arm yourself to the fullest. If you have to match fire power with fire power then you should be allowed to do so, as the constitution states you have the right to do so. It was not limited to single shot powder pistols and muskets. Bearing arms covers all types of weapons, not just powder muskets.

There you go, I'm proud of you for forming your own thoughts and presenting them without a page of back and forth bullshit :D

I don't think you can apply the same gun law to the whole country. Fact is, in some states having a gun does actually keep you safe and deter criminal activity. Maybe gun control in major cities, like they did in the Wild West? In the city you can rely on the police a bit more, whereas out in the sticks you can't count on them. Que the police are slower in the city than they are in the sticks memes lol

Good comment.. ! Even in the cities. . Cops usually arrive "after the fact". I'll trust my glock 21 on my nightstand before calling 911. ;)

Correct. . And why we need armed legal citizens having the right to self defense. Good one!

I don't think you understand my statements, but I'm sure you think you do. You're arguing something with an imaginary enemy, or you mistakenly replied to me.

If we eliminate all laws that don't stop illegal activities, we'd have none. Your beef is with laws, not gun laws.

Who said eliminate all laws?

Just the ones that don't work. You make the argument that gun laws don't work, I assume that being your reason for opposing them. No laws "work" under that criteria. Have I misunderstood your argument?

I oppose useless expanded laws. We have laws in place.. they don't prevent bad guys getting them. . Or they wouldn't have them

What makes a law useless? To me, closing the gun show loophole IS enforcing current law that has previously been unenforced. And I understand the civil liberty concerns with the no-fly list, but that's not a gun issue.

what is the gun show loophole? I have heard this argument countless times. I have purchased at gunshows,... had to show my ccw to purchase... for everything aside from gun parts. Any lower receiver on a rifle requires ID and BG. Any fully assemble firearm the same way. So what is the loophole you reference?

My understanding is that licensed dealers are required to do the required paperwork, but there are those who sell guns at shows that, because they sell fewer guns, they get a pass. But if there was no loophole, then "closing" it will have no effect, right?

I wonder if more crimes are committed with these so called "loop hole" guns or from stolen guns?

So we're back to not having laws that don't work? Really??? I'm out.

can't a girl wonder? come back..lol

I don't know what state you are referencing,.. please advise. In my state an FFL dealer has to follow all ATF and fed regs. . regardless of volume of sales. There is no loophole that you described. . I would like to see a reg from the state or the feds that decribe what you just stated. If that were true,.. then yes,.. close the hole. But it is not true,.. its a standard fib to fool the masses.

Then, like I said, no harm done. At worst, Obama made a big to-do about nothing.

These people don't know what a lower receiver is, they think that is something you would find in a bar in San Francisco.

BWAAAA HA HA HA !! Like Diane Feinstein!! "If it's black,... it's an assault weapon"........... Morons!!!

I'll concede knowledge of firearms as a prime indicator of intelligence...

Lmao.. now that's a 1st! A troll got PUNKED by tetsuowrath! You guys are suppose to be looking for trolls.. you got lots of views and comments though. ;) you are also grammarnazi. . Or just working together?

I'm not him and I don't know him. It's possible to have 2 intelligent people on the same site.

LMAO! Look,.. to troll the site,.. be smart! I'm not smart,.. and I see through it. =)
If you don't know him ( you ),.. why would you even respond,.. or suggest that user is intelligent? I read that comment,.. it's not one to rate someones intelligence bro!! The problem with trolling,.. is you assume more than one identity. 2ndly,.. when I tagged you,.. out of no where the alt chimes in. You can't do that or peeps will catch on. **Wink wink! Now get a troll,.. I'm a waste of time. (hint hint)

At least someone has it all figured out. This is why you're able to see through Obama's evil gun grab plot. :)

It is disconcerting after all these years to have such a convincing case put forward that we are in fact the same people. Nevertheless, I will continue to live in state of denial until I can refute such a claim.

Guns would. Haven't you heard...guns are evil and have a mind of their own.

No, they don't kill people, but I've heard they can magically "save lives."

it all depends on whose hand it is in...just like drugs :)

Guns do nothing by themselves, good or bad.

BINGO! It is bad people on guns..i mean with guns :D

so it's a " bad people problem",... not a gun problem. Why not regulate the bad people then,... leave the laws in place as they are ,... and stop trying to regulate more guns and good citizens?

The fact that guns do nothing without human intervention, while true, does nothing to suggest guns shouldn't be regulated. It's a clever soundbite, but not an argument to me. We regulate all kinds of inanimate objects.

Reread my comment.. "leave the laws in place". What's clever about that? No one said no gun regulation should be in place.

Point taken. You didn't say there should be no gun regulation, but at least one person here has (tetsuoswrath). Granted, he's a nutter. But the argument is the same, whether existing laws or new laws.

YOU ARE Yet To Identify THE Loopholes IN Selling Guns YOU mentioned. . That obama will use his extreme wisdom in closing. It's a ruse bro.. research it.

So, you're saying Obama didn't change the law. Then what's the fuss all about? How is he further restricting gun owners if he changed nothing? But I did identify the loophole.

Ask Obama's secret service detail if they are designed to kill,.. or save lives. If they are simply designed to kill,.. they need to disarm that detail, because one gun could jump out of its holster, ( by design since it is made to kill).. and take a life. Something tells me that the SS keeps an arsenal on hand to "protect" life. .

I just said "Guns do nothing by themselves, good or bad." Do you dispute that?

Nope,.. you made a great argument that supports what most pro 2nd amendment folks already know. Guns don't kill people - people kill people. So why more gun regulation that will not effect anything? Correct?

I simply do not see how that conclusion follows from that statement. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns." Another clever and true soundbite that doesn't dissuade me from my position at all.

Bro.. I've chatted you up before. You are troll of sorts. You comment to annoy.. I've seen them. You don't create memes.. I've seen them too. You have enough education to be smart enough to research. . But you don't do that either. So.. what exactly are you doing besides trolling?

I don't create memes?

Man.. you guys are out today! Get someone else ... I'm taking a break. Go after njrob.. he riles easy. ;)

Replying here to your above comment. Ya gotta do your own research there bro on what he is proposing. But the loophole you mentioned about low volume dealers.. does not exist. Look it up.. regs are already there.

But are they enforced? Please fill me in on how Obama's executive action infringes on the rights of legal gun owners. My sources are obviously wrong.

Nope. .not filling you in. troll somewhere else.

Attenborough Voice: Pay close attention as the conservative is unable to formulate a response. This in nature is classed as the loser of an argument.

Libs think that way! ;)

Then why is it illegal?

why are pharmaceutical drugs legal lol maybe because they are useful

And they are restricted

and that works because we hardly have any drug problem in this country ;)

It does work. You don't seem to be distinguishing between illegal use and legal use

I was asking why murder is illegal.

because murder is bad

I don't think you're following... Murder laws work as well as gun laws. So, if you claim gun laws being ineffective is an argument against having them, how can you then support murder laws?

We have laws already against someone committing a crime with a gun. We don't need more laws to supposedly prevent laws from being broken.Murder is a crime. Owning a gun is not....YET!

The argument is simple: we should not have laws if they don't stop the crime they address. I am not making any statement about guns at all. I am simply saying the argument is unmoving to anyone outside the gun enthusiast echo chamber.

Why don't we just enforce the laws already on the books and stop making laws that help the criminal and harm the law abiding citizen? Put murderers in jail. Put anyone who commits a crime in jail and leave everyone else alone!

We're having two different arguments.

No law will stop a crime. Crimes are committed by people who have no respect for the law.

Yeah, it would be amusing if it weren't so sad but you're doing a valiant effort ( btw https://imgflip.com/i/wpm16 )

"No law will stop a crime. Crimes are committed by people who have no respect for the law." Do you see how you're arguing laws won't stop crime, yet nobody else is arguing that it will. This is a much more sophisticated argument.