Man shoots wife and pets, blames NRA

I don't want to do it. It would mean most of the guns I own would become illegal.

 

While it's true that private sales aren't cross checked, the majority of sales are. You say because the system isn't total, we should do nothing?
Anyone who is really interested in limiting murders where firearms are involved should be smart enough to know that the weapon does not become deadly until it is in the hands of a person with violent intent. Effective regulation would have to address the person as the most important element of the problem. Because they avoid that, I know that they fear the sheer existence of guns, as some people fear snakes or sharks.... and they are less concerned with the actual body count.

I tried to figure out what you were trying to say with "pervade". I make a lot of typos, so I'm trying to figure it out. Couldn't come up with a option for that that could fit. "procure" would work, but that wouldn't be a typo.

 

only sales from a licensed gun dealer.

that's a damn lie. I'm saying if we couldn't deny someone that writes it should be done through due process of law. Like the Constitution says

until the government creates a device that can read minds we won't know the intent people have. Your intent shouldn't be assumed based on some cursory medical exams.

through due process of law as the Constitution prescribes.

it was a typing error. The word I intended to type was purchase.

A typo is a typographical error so an error and typing is a typographical error therefore it's a typo.

So yes it is a typo. It is a typo that is augmented by word replace.

 

Panties in a bunch? Relax. I'm not attacking you.

 

But you are lying.

If you want to imagine me wearing panties that's your business.

I don't know how you're interpreting my words. So I will explain how they are meant.

I do get irritated when someone either doesn't read what the responding to or they just openly lie about what the other person said.

I said in order to deny people rights you have to follow due process of law that is not do nothing that's the opposite of do nothing you couldn't have gotten that accusation more wrong if you tried.

I get a little irritated when I put cotton in my response and you don't bother reading it. Are you think I'm dumb enough to fall for a strawman.

So in the future don't insult my intelligence and I won't get irritated

 

And I have no intention of lying, and by my values- I do not. However I do call things as I see them, especially when I have clear and confirmed knowledge to back it up. I consider intelligence indicated by a persons ability to grasp things, think logically and respond logically. If you want to get into the nit-pickers kind of arguments that denies anything you don't want to hear- I'm not your man.

Conditions in politics right now are so distorted and dysfunctional that a large percentage of people are doing that.

 

you're the one that picking about what is or isn't the type of okay so don't call the kettle black.

You grossly misrepresented my statement. Either because you didn't read it are you are being intellectually dishonest.

I did not say that because of the system was not perfect that we should do nothing.

You claim that I did that is a straw man fallacy.

This isn't nitpicking this is the argument you made.

I said an order to deny someone the right they have to be denied through due process of law that is the opposite of do nothing.

are you even reading this do you read anything do you just wait for a response and then what the crap fly out of your mouth?

 

It seems you don't recognize this symbol-- ?

When you see that at the end of a sentence, it means the sentence is a question. If you look back when you regain your composure, you will find that you took questions as some kind of accusations.
So was that "You grossly misrepresented my statement. Either because you didn't read it are you are being intellectually dishonest."

Maybe you quit reading before the end of the question and did not realize the difference. Either way, you aren't discussing anything, you are arguing, and in my opinion there's nothing of value in this. So- drop it.

 

I don't normally focus on punctuation because language means more than punctuation and you can improperly punctuate things.

If I misunderstood a question then I apologize I'm not too much of a snob to do that.

If you want me to drop it stop responding to me. But I'm not going to drop it just too because you want me to.

 

Nothing is ever gained from people at the extremes. Gain comes at center-field when people talk, and not lose it when they encounter disagreement. That's discussion- keeping your cool is part of the territory.

 

Too bad you can't take your own advice. when you make a straw man fallacy that's probably either because you didn't understand the statement made or you are being dishonest.

A big part of discussion is being able to admit when you're wrong. You pointed out you ask me a question that I misunderstood which I acknowledged and asked you about but you would rather lecture me about things that you need to brush up on.

Just FYI you're still not dropping this.

 

You don't have that choice to make. I don't find you a reasonable of fair person or one with any constructive objective- so it is a waste of time to continue this silly game. We're done.

 

Then be done and scamper off with your tail between your legs.

 

I was talking about the federal government.

 

Asinine non sequitur drivel that vapidly pretends that Republicans are immune from mental illness.

 

Such was ruled on already. The united states federal government also cannot prohibit an entire class of firearms, especially if it is in common use. Heller pertained to the actions of the district of columbia which was under federal jurisdiction, while McDonald applied the same standards to the individual states and territories.

 

Same difference. The federal government has no constitutional powers to limit the type of bearable arms a citizen may possess, the second amendment stands in their way. A new amendment would be needed.

 

The federal government already limits the ownership of machine guns and mortars both of which are bearable arms.

 

And such required differentiating them from all other types of firearms that were in existence at the time, including semi-automatic firearms. Legally it cannot reclassify existing firearms that are in common use, to include them right alongside fully-automatic firearms and explosive devices.

 

Neither of which are prohibited. I can own both.

 

But only after passing an invasive background check and strictly limited to a small supply of such weapons and being REGISTERED as the owner of said weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

 

Thus admitting that the equipment in question is not actually prohibited from ownership. Thus meaning the united states federal government admitted openly, that it simply did not have the legal authority to prohibit the legal ownership of any firearms or explosive devices outright. The most it could do is simply restrict the availability by specifically classifying it as different from other common firearms, but it could not prohibit the ownership.

Thus if the united states federal government could not prohibit the ownership of fully-automatic firearms, it cannot prohibit the ownership of any other type of firearm.

 

It PROVES that it is CONSTITUTIONAL to regulate Universal Background Checks and Firearms Registries for the 2nd amendment rights of We the People!

 

Correct. I have 2 NFA items currently. The process is not that hard. If you are legally able to own a hand gun (as in you aren’t a prohibited person like a felon, etc) you can own any class 3 weapon.

 

Except for the fact that such has never actually been proven. The sole reason the national firearms act is considered constitutional, is because it pertains to the matter of revenue generation. That is what the two hundred dollar tax stamp is for. If congress were to repeal that specific part of the legislation, and government could no longer collect the tax, the entire act would be classified as unconstitutional as a direct result.