Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 12:33 pm

Because it illustrates how, when running on quintessence of bitterness, you are inclined to choosing your words carelessly....

Acknowledge that you've been ANSWERED, the first time.

That's your freebie...

Now start a thread

Oh, you offered an answer.  Not a good one, but it is an answer.  That's a freebie.  There is noting careless about those words.  It was an excellent mocking of you.  

PS.  I'll post whatever I want on this thread particularly when you won't explain how this bill will reduce mass murders.  

ConsRule » 21 Apr 2021, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 12:39 pm

Not every detail is mentioned...and liberals love to point that out in a multitude or cases...like the right to same sex marriage, the right to an abortion, the right to government paid health insurance, etc.  Show me where those are specifically mentioned.

But Cons insist on strict construction.....with the exception of that frivolous intro to the 2nd...

An interpretation which will be extinguished the minute GOP Presidents pandering to a dwindling base run out of SCOTUS nominees eager to trade firearms victims for fetuses....

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 12:39 pm

Work on answering questions put to YOU...

When you set the example. Particularly, as you would say, this is my thread Control Freak.

Idiot, we are not discussing clips.  We are discussing magazine.  They are two very distinct and different things.  Before you attempt to sound cool and knowledgeable on the topic I suggest you go study the terminology.  Add this to your C5, CV Gas chamber, Chain Gun Debacles, idiot. 

 

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 12:43 pm

But Cons insist on strict construction.....with the exception of that frivolous intro to the 2nd...

An interpretation which will be extinguished the minute GOP Presidents pandering to a dwindling base run out of SCOTUS nominees eager to trade firearms victims for fetuses....

A magazine is not a firearm.  Nor is a clip. 

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 12:43 pm

But Cons insist on strict construction.....with the exception of that frivolous intro to the 2nd...

An interpretation which will be extinguished the minute GOP Presidents pandering to a dwindling base run out of SCOTUS nominees eager to trade firearms victims for fetuses....

You mean similar to the way liberals want to expand every clause and amendment...except the 2nd.

Now...a brief English lesson related to the wording of the 2nd;

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as an "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—is a prefatory clause

Justice Scalia, who wrote the Heller ruling, thought it made no sense to treat the prefatory clause as the only reason for the right to keep and bear arms rather than one of the reasons.  He felt such treatment nullified the operative clause and, therefore, we could not make the right contingent on militia service.

And you really should look at the definition of militia; all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.  Also, according to the expert from CNN;

"Regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, wel-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/u ... Aug_11.pdf


 

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 12:39 pm

Work on answering questions put to YOU...

As you say it is my thread and I will answer and comment on any post I want.  If that rule works for you it is certainly works for me.

By all means, ban all the CLIPS you want.  

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:00 pm

Which like all rights can be regulated

Like Biden said.  Did he mention the conditions under which he thinks slavery is acceptable in the US?

If he did, I missed it.

ConsRule » 21 Apr 2021, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:07 pm

You mean similar to the way liberals want to expand every clause and amendment...except the 2nd.

Now...a brief English lesson related to the wording of the 2nd;

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as an "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—is a prefatory clause

Justice Scalia, who wrote the Heller ruling, thought it made no sense to treat the prefatory clause as the only reason for the right to keep and bear arms rather than one of the reasons.  He felt such treatment nullified the operative clause and, therefore, we could not make the right contingent on militia service.

And you really should look at the definition of militia; all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.  Also, according to the expert from CNN;

=19.2px"Well=19.2px-=19.2pxregulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well=19.2px-=19.2pxorganized, well=19.2px-=19.2pxarmed, =19.2pxwell=19.2px-=19.2pxdisciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in =19.2pxthat it's n=19.2pxot about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was =19.2pxin an effective shape to fight."=19.2pxIn other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather =19.2pxthat the militia was prepared to do its du=19.2pxty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/u ... Aug_11.pdf

Yeah sure. However that doesnt change the FACT there is NO SUCH preferatory clause on Speech press petittion or assembly.  That means they MEANT for it to be seen differently. I think Scalia was wrong but that is neither here nor there it is the LAW NOW

THe bottom line is that doesnt make the right to bear arms UNLIMITED.  Even the freedoms cited WITHOUT such preferatory laws which you seem to be saying mean NOTHING, though it was put in for SOME reason. even rights like SPEECH are not unlimited. Not only can I be put IN PRISON for simply talking you into giving me your money for a chrity then using it for buying blue suede shoes, but for MOST of the life of the freedom of speech you could be put in PRISON for what you say the government didnt like.  Until the sixties we had a seditious libel law.  That is a law that basically says you can be prosecuted for saying something the government says damages them. Eugene Debs went to prison for a TEN YEAR TERM for simply giving an anti war speech

Rights are not absolute and like MOST liberals I know I dont want your guns. Keep all the guns you want. I just want to see some common sense restrictions that will make the HUGE PRICE we pay for this right in BLOOD taken down a few notches. Most of the civilized countries in the world have such restrictions and are strll pretty free. Meanwhile whle we see our gun deaths at around 30.000 a year most countreis number them in the dozents or at most hundreds

solon » 21 Apr 2021, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:16 pm

Rights are not absolute and like MOST liberals I know I dont want your guns. Keep all the guns you want. I just want to see some common sense restrictions that will make the HUGE PRICE we pay for this right in BLOOD taken down a few notches.
 

And how, EXACTLY, will the proposals do that?  How do you write a law that keeps people from breaking the law?

There are very simple facts that you simply do not want to admit.  One of them is there is no weapon, clip, stock, silencer, etc...known to man...that can take the life of ANY being by itself.  Every single one requires a person.  People who have absolutely no problem committing multiple felonies in the span of a few minutes (like the kid in Indiana) are simple not going to say "Damn, I can't break THAT law.  Guess I will have to eat a peanut butter sandwich rather than go kill a lot of people like I had planned to do."
 

ConsRule » 21 Apr 2021, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:33 pm

And how, EXACTLY, will the proposals do that?  How do you write a law that keeps people from breaking the law?

There are very simple facts that you simply do not want to admit.  One of them is there is no weapon, clip, stock, silencer, etc...known to man...that can take the life of ANY being by itself.  Every single one requires a person.  People who have absolutely no problem committing multiple felonies in the span of a few minutes (like the kid in Indiana) are simple not going to say "Damn, I can't break THAT law.  Guess I will have to eat a peanut butter sandwich rather than go kill a lot of people like I had planned to do."

Your first sentence is silly. WE write laws that say MURDER is against the law. How does that STOP MURDER? Does that mean we shouldnt HAVE laws against murder I men they dont STOP it


Then we get silly talking points I was hoping for REAL discussion but no we get the AGE OLD SILLYNESS. The gun might not do it by itself but it makes it aLOT EASIER and the countries that DO regulate guns have a LOT LESS MURDERS. That is a FACT



Then its back to the silly logical fallacy. Since criminals dont listen to lwas why do we write ANY of them? Nothing STOPS people from comitting murder or robging banks are you arguing that we shouldnt HAVE LAWS agasinst murder and robbing banks?

 

solon » 21 Apr 2021, 1:39 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:39 pm

Your first sentence is silly. WE write laws that say MURDER is against the law. How does that STOP MURDER? Does that mean we shouldnt HAVE laws against murder I men they dont STOP it

Then we get silly talking points I was hoping for REAL discussion but no we get the AGE OLD SILLYNESS. The gun might not do it by itself but it makes it aLOT EASIER and the countries that DO regulate guns have a LOT LESS MURDERS. That is a FACT

Then its back to the silly logical fallacy. Since criminals dont listen to lwas why do we write ANY of them? Nothing STOPS people from comitting murder or robging banks are you arguing that we shouldnt HAVE LAWS agasinst murder and robbing banks?

Thank you for making my point.  We ALREADY have laws on the books making it illegal to shoot people and/or kill them...yet people still commit murder.  Why do we need another law that won't stop people from breaking the laws that already exist?

Why do you want to "punish" people who obey the law?  Focus on enforcing the laws that exist and punishing people who break them.

Oh...and FYI...other countries don't have to follow our Constitution.  If you like their laws better, you could always move there.
 

ConsRule » 21 Apr 2021, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:45 pm

Thank you for making my point.  We ALREADY have laws on the books making it illegal to shoot people and/or kill them...yet people still commit murder.  Why do we need another law that won't stop people from breaking the laws that already exist?

Why do you want to "punish" people who obey the law?  Focus on enforcing the laws that exist and punishing people who break them.

Oh...and FYI...other countries don't have to follow our Constitution.  If you like their laws better, you could always move there.

You had no point. IT is not punishing someone to say you dont need THESE guns in public or ALL gun sales must be regulated with backround checks.  How about trigger locks o... Again we are not talking about taking your guns way maybe some SPECIFIC types of guns that are not necessary for any reasonable reason but the bottom line is GUN CONTROL MEASURES to lessen the CARNAGE is legal and not an attack on your right to have a gun

No you didnt HAVE a point you were claiming that since people wont listen to the law why HAVE a law.  That is alogical fallacy abd I showed why. We DO have a right to put some restrictions on guns that can bring down  teh cost we pay in BLOOD with these constant killings then we should. The gun nuts will always demand that NOTHING be done. We can do some things wtihout taking away the right to have a gun and if its over your objectgsions too bad.

Saying we already HAVE laws so we dont need laws is dumb.
 

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 12:41 pm

Oh, you offered an answer.  Not a good one, but it is an answer.  That's a freebie.  There is noting careless about those words.  It was an excellent mocking of you.   There is noting careless about those words.  It was an excellent mocking of you. 

 
 

Not a good one, but it is an answer

Where, specifically, does it fall short of your standards?

:rofl:  

(In a minute, you'll get it too)

There is noting careless about those words.  It was an excellent mocking of you.  

Powerful indeed......through all this time they continue to sting...

Not me so much, of course........

  PS.  I'll post whatever I want on this thread particularly when you won't explain how this bill will reduce mass murders.  

So you do what you want PARTICULARLY "Because Blackvegetable"...



Nice twist....

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 1:12 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:12 pm

As you say it is my thread and I will answer and comment on any post I want.  If that rule works for you it is certainly works for me.

By all means, ban all the CLIPS you want.
 

 

As you say it is my thread and I will answer and comment on any post I want

WTF?


Are you assuming Agency here?

If that rule works for you it is certainly works for me.

Apparently not.

Back to the Script.......


Certainty...

Now THAT works for all of us....

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:54 pm

Where, specifically, does it fall short of your standards?

 

(In a minute, you'll get it too)

Powerful indeed......through all this time they continue to sting...

Not me so much, of course........

So you do what you want PARTICULARLY "Because Blackvegetable"...

Nice twist....

It is not stinging me.  Reminds me that you are a coward.  As I said it is a badge of honor.  You are not smart enough to figure it out.  

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:57 pm

WTF?

Are you assuming Agency here?

Apparently not.

Back to the Script.......

Certainty...

Now THAT works for all of us....

That's nice.  You got that argument as to why the bill discussed in the OP is not cheese?  

solon » 21 Apr 2021, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:51 pm

You had no point. IT is not punishing someone to say you dont need THESE guns in public or ALL gun sales must be regulated with backround checks.  How about trigger locks o... Again we are not talking about taking your guns way maybe some SPECIFIC types of guns that are not necessary for any reasonable reason but the bottom line is GUN CONTROL MEASURES to lessen the CARNAGE is legal and not an attack on your right to have a gun

No you didnt HAVE a point you were claiming that since people wont listen to the law why HAVE a law.  That is alogical fallacy abd I showed why. We DO have a right to put some restrictions on guns that can bring down  teh cost we pay in BLOOD with these constant killings then we should. The gun nuts will always demand that NOTHING be done. We can do some things wtihout taking away the right to have a gun and if its over your objectgsions too bad.

Saying we already HAVE laws so we dont need laws is dumb.

I noticed you didn't answer the question.  How, specifically, will this proposal reduce the "carnage" (to use your word)?

FYI...I never said we don't need laws.  There you go lying again.  Like a typical liberal.  When you are scared to answer a question, resort to lies and/or personal attacks.

 

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 1:59 pm

It is not stinging me.  Reminds me that you are a coward.  As I said it is a badge of honor.  You are not smart enough to figure it out.

(In a minute, you'll get it too)


Do you get it yet?

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 2:00 pm

That's nice.  You got that argument as to why the bill discussed in the OP is not cheese?

 

I'll post whatever I want on this thread

Wi.

ConsRule » 21 Apr 2021, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 2:01 pm

I noticed you didn't answer the question.  How, specifically, will this proposal reduce the "carnage" (to use your word)?

FYI...I never said we don't need laws.  There you go lying again.  Like a typical liberal.  When you are scared to answer a question, resort to lies and/or personal attacks.

YOU ARE A liar. The argument you made was that they wont OBEY the law so we dont need it. By that logic NO LAWS are useful. IT was STUPID but it was your ARGUMENT. Typiceal IGHORANT TreasonMonkey LIAR that you are

Then you do the TYPICAL TreasonMonkey STUPIIDTY you attack ME personally then WHINE and snivel like a PUNK that I treat you the same way GFY ignorant child. Stop being RUDE to me and I will stop being rude to you otherwise FOAD