The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Lawman said:
You just named off a list of requirements required to exercise your second amendment rights.

Justify those same restrictions for free speech. Specifically the Internet which the founding fathers could never have imagined or accounted for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Still don't follow.
 
Lawman said:
He won't answer. Just pointing out the absurdity of having freedoms and treating them differently where one becomes a privilege.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'd answer if I can understand what you are asking.
 
Seggy said:
Still don't follow.
Click to expand...

You want to restrict a constitutionally guaranteed right with restrictions for access and use.

Justify those same restrictions being used against the first amendment.

If you can't just that with Internet speech where are your justification for doing it to another right. If you can't just say so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
You want to restrict a constitutionally guaranteed right with restrictions for access and use.

Justify those same restrictions being used against the first amendment.

If you can't just that with Internet speech where are your justification for doing it to another right. If you can't just say so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ah.

You would have the right to bear arms by going to your local Walmart and buying all the AR-15s you want. Of course they would hold a monopoly on them so it would cost a pretty penny.

Also, I can't post anything on the Internet. I can call someone a 'despicable human being' and get some time off by the moderators for breaking the Terms and Conditions of this website.
 
Seggy said:
Ah.

You would have the right to bear arms by going to your local Walmart and buying all the AR-15s you want. Of course they would hold a monopoly on them so it would cost a pretty penny.

Also, I can't post anything on the Internet. I can call someone a 'despicable human being' and get some time off by the moderators for breaking the Terms and Conditions of this website.
Click to expand...

No answer the question.

Justify the back ground check to speak. Justify the mental health updates. Provide a demonstrated standard of ability that should be required to use the Internet.

Go ahead build your case for the second amendment being restricted/curtailed by proving it can be equally and fairly employed on the first amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seggy said:
Ah.

You would have the right to bear arms by going to your local Walmart and buying all the AR-15s you want. Of course they would hold a monopoly on them so it would cost a pretty penny.

Also, I can't post anything on the Internet. I can call someone a 'despicable human being' and get some time off by the moderators for breaking the Terms and Conditions of this website.
Click to expand...
The TOS here doesn't dictate what fire arm I can purchase.
 
Lawman said:
No answer the question.
Click to expand...

I did. You don't like the answer.

Justify the back ground check to speak. Justify the mental health updates. Provide a demonstrated standard of ability that should be required to use the Internet.

Go ahead build your case for the second amendment being restricted/curtailed by proving it can be equally and fairly employed on the first amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You don't want folks with mental health issues with guns. Pretty clear cut to me!
 
NickH said:
The whole purpose was to prevent criminals and non-whites from purchasing those types of firearms, and the point of the CLEO sign off was because he would be the guy with the local knowledge to make sure you weren't a criminal, and could look to make sure you were white.
Click to expand...

Good grief this thread is just full of fail. Yes I am sure in your victim mentality someone out there in the US government is plotting a giant gun control conspiracy to ensure that only "white" people can own guns. Now we really get to the heart of the matter and some of the truth comes out.

Come on.....This is 2016. While that might happen in some remote small town in the middle of no where there isn't a grand conspiracy to keep "non-whites" from owning guns. Not saying racism doesn't happen. It most certainly does. But there is not a vast conspiracy by the US government to keep "non-whites" from owning firearms.

Our government is "THE" most diverse government on the planet in the history of the world. I spent a lot of my career working for the government. In the Army we had one color, that was Green. In the Air Force we had one color, Blue. The only people in our government complaining about keeping "non-whites" from excising their 2nd amendment rights are the conspiracy theorists.

God Grief.....
 
Seggy said:
I did. You don't like the answer.



You don't want folks with mental health issues with guns. Pretty clear cut to me!
Click to expand...

Should we let them vote? Should we let them run for office?

What mental health issues are disqualifying for all those. When is that decision made and by whom? When you register to vote? When you apply for public election?

Hacker self admitted in another thread to having a child with autism. Should that child be bared access to voting? Or guns? After all his child has a "mental health issue" according to people in the anti gun crowd. How can people like that be expected to exercise those other rights responsibly if they can't be expected to exercise the 2nd amendment ones.


That's the problem with your argument. You cannot restrict the 2nd amendment the way you want to while at the same time pretend it would be constitutional to do the same to all the others in that document. But go ahead prove me and Hacker and all these other people wrong that the government can restrict your access to speech with the same restrictions and certification requirements needed in your conditions to operate the 2nd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Seggy said:
If you want to play that game, the 'TOS' so to speak allowed slavery and didn't allow women to vote. Should we not allow women to post on here? Should we have slaves?
Click to expand...

Our founding fathers were not perfect. They made mistakes. Women suffrage and slavery in the US were both were bad. Thankfully we have a process to correct things like that. But without the 2nd, either by design or accident, we can't ensure the other amendments will remain.
 
Seggy said:
Thanks for that.

Another way to look at it is, I am hopeful that they are looking to split the different factions surrounding the fire arm business, create infighting, and then that will allow opportunities for gun control advocates to come in with a united front while smaller gun dealers are fighting the larger gun dealers about the terms 'in the business' like you alluded to with the increase in fees that will be going to some of the larger sellers.

Divide and conquer.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that you are going to be disappointed when it's all said and done. While I'm sure that you'd be skeetfully ecstatic if your socialist ideal came to fruition, these EOs are not going to produce your desired "divide and conquer."

On an initial read through, it looks like some deck chair rearrangement, with some cleaning up.
 
Lawman said:
Should we let them vote? Should we let them run for office?

What mental health issues are disqualifying for all those. When is that decision made and by whom? When you register to vote? When you apply for public election?

Hacker self admitted in another thread to having a child with autism. Should that child be bared access to voting? Or guns? After all he has a "mental health issue" according to people in the anti gun crowd. How can people like that be expected to exercise those other rights responsibly if he they can't be expected to exercise the 2nd amendment ones.


That's the problem with your argument. You cannot restrict the 2nd amendment the way you want to while at the same time pretend it would be constitutional to do the same to all the others in that document.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Should we have voter ID laws?

As you can see, restrictions are in place for voting.
 
Cptnchia said:
I get the feeling that you are going to be disappointed when it's all said and done. While I'm sure that you'd be skeetfully ecstatic if your socialist ideal came to fruition, these EOs are not going to produce your desired "divide and conquer."

On an initial read through, it looks like some deck chair rearrangement, with some cleaning up.
Click to expand...

The gun control advocates are getting smart and playing the long game...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/bloomberg-koch-virginia-election/

Yes, it may look like some clean up, but the clean up may lead to a huge spring cleaning in a few years depending who it interacts with other things in the pipeline.
 
Seggy said:
Should we have voter ID laws?

As you can see, restrictions are in place for voting.
Click to expand...

No what competency test is required to vote.

Go ahead, you are demanding one to use a firearm. Why should we let you or be subject to your voting if you can't competently demonstrate the ability to do so responsibly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seggy said:
Should we have voter ID laws?

As you can see, restrictions are in place for voting.
Click to expand...

When you were with ALPA would you let any one off the street vote on your contracts with the airline? Would you let passengers vote if your pilots would get a raise? How about the taxi drivers? Or better yet lets put it to a Internet vote and let everyone decide if you got a raise or had to make concessions for the good of the airline?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top