Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun ownership is a right. You have no argument until 2/3 of the states repeal the second amendment . If you choose to nullify the constitution ... You will bring on the end of your comfortable existence .

Great. Show me where that right includes you being able to hide your gun ownership from the public.

Also, this whole "end of your comfortable existence" just got filed along with last month's declarations that America is Done For, after Obama won. You and your pathetic little band of Walter Mittys. Probably don't even know shit about firearms.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Note the Liberty part?

How one cannot see all the layoffs, joblessness, etc. around them and see that as a good thing, is amazing. Now THAT'S being Walter Mitty!

How many times does this need to be explained? Liberty has limits. You can't drive your car drunk, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, and you shouldn't be able to turn your house into an arsenal without taking some responsibility for it.

Owning a gun is not a crime. Driving drunk is. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because that is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Owning a gun in itself, is not a crime, nor is it irresponsible. Treating all gun-owners as if they are irresponsible and have already committed a crime is indeed about liberty.

Uh, no, you are wrong about that. You can re-read the Supreme Court cases on 1st Amdt if you like.

As for your last point, everyone, even the most conservative constitutional scholars, recognize limits on the right to bear arms. It's just a matter of what limits are constitutional. If you want to go with this all or nothing approach, you are going to lose. Scalia won't back you. Thomas won't back you. Nobody will back you.

Sigh:

"Yet Brandenburg claimed the First Amendment protected his speech. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed with him, in contrast with the earlier Schenck decision. Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortion services. Please look up the Hyde Amendment and educate yourself. And if you're the same poster who thinks this:

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because that is PRIVATE PROPERTY

You are REALLY dumb.

Does Planned Parenthood take federal funds, i.e. taxpayer dollars? If so, I am being forced to support a company that provides abortions. That my funds don't go directly TO abortions is of no difference to me.

I take it you want to bring those children into the world so that some guy can exercise his right to liberty by shooting them dead when they turn six?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun ownership is a right. You have no argument until 2/3 of the states repeal the second amendment . If you choose to nullify the constitution ... You will bring on the end of your comfortable existence .

Great. Show me where that right includes you being able to hide your gun ownership from the public.

Also, this whole "end of your comfortable existence" just got filed along with last month's declarations that America is Done For, after Obama won. You and your pathetic little band of Walter Mittys. Probably don't even know shit about firearms.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Note the Liberty part?

How one cannot see all the layoffs, joblessness, etc. around them and see that as a good thing, is amazing. Now THAT'S being Walter Mitty!

How many times does this need to be explained? Liberty has limits. You can't drive your car drunk, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, and you shouldn't be able to turn your house into an arsenal without taking some responsibility for it.

Owning a gun is not a crime. Driving drunk is. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because that is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Owning a gun in itself, is not a crime, nor is it irresponsible. Treating all gun-owners as if they are irresponsible and have already committed a crime is indeed about liberty.

Uh, no, you are wrong about that. You can re-read the Supreme Court cases on 1st Amdt if you like.

As for your last point, everyone, even the most conservative constitutional scholars, recognize limits on the right to bear arms. It's just a matter of what limits are constitutional. If you want to go with this all or nothing approach, you are going to lose. Scalia won't back you. Thomas won't back you. Nobody will back you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And my tax dollars were used to support the Iraq war which I never supported.

But that was a Constitutional war.

There's actually a very good argument that it wasn't.

But all of this diverts from the larger point- we need stricter gun control.

Anonymous wrote:And my tax dollars were used to support the Iraq war which I never supported.

my tax dollars were used for gun running. wtf!

Anonymous wrote:And my tax dollars were used to support the Iraq war which I never supported.

But that was a Constitutional war.

As for yelling fire, show me the law that specifically states one can't? There IS no law, because it would be a restriction of freedom of speech, and because, here COULD BE A FIRE. So what you really mean is you can't yell fire FASLEY in a crowded movie theatre.

Now there are laws against creating a public disturbance, etc., but no law against yelling fire in a private theatre. Matter of fact, what if it's part of the show, to do so? As I said, private property, their rules.

And my tax dollars were used to support the Iraq war which I never supported.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortion services. Please look up the Hyde Amendment and educate yourself. And if you're the same poster who thinks this:

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because that is PRIVATE PROPERTY

You are REALLY dumb.

Does Planned Parenthood take federal funds, i.e. taxpayer dollars? If so, I am being forced to support a company that provides abortions. That my funds don't go directly TO abortions is of no difference to me.

You need to contact your congressman about that; this thread is about gun control.

Anonymous wrote:Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortion services. Please look up the Hyde Amendment and educate yourself. And if you're the same poster who thinks this:

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because that is PRIVATE PROPERTY

You are REALLY dumb.

Does Planned Parenthood take federal funds, i.e. taxpayer dollars? If so, I am being forced to support a company that provides abortions. That my funds don't go directly TO abortions is of no difference to me.

That would describe Obama all right. And liberals

Obama doesn't? Please!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun ownership is a right. You have no argument until 2/3 of the states repeal the second amendment . If you choose to nullify the constitution ... You will bring on the end of your comfortable existence .

Great. Show me where that right includes you being able to hide your gun ownership from the public.

Also, this whole "end of your comfortable existence" just got filed along with last month's declarations that America is Done For, after Obama won. You and your pathetic little band of Walter Mittys. Probably don't even know shit about firearms.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Note the Liberty part?

How one cannot see all the layoffs, joblessness, etc. around them and see that as a good thing, is amazing. Now THAT'S being Walter Mitty!

It appears you do not understand what "Walter Mitty" refers to. And I don't see how gun regulation will lead to unemployment increases for America, unless by reducing the number of dead males of working age.

I do understand but it's no surprise you thought I meant gun regulation will lead to unemployment. There already IS tremendous unemployment and other negatives as Obama tries to create his utopia and liberals, hell bent on some hippie 'we all have to be equal and life will be beautiful" trip, folllow him like lemmings off the cliff.

Well you misused the term because Walter Mitty is about ineffectual people fantasizing about being heroic or powerful figures.

And lastly, Obama doesn't have a thing to do with the current public concern over guns. So why you are bringing him up is really just odd.

Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortion services. Please look up the Hyde Amendment and educate yourself. And if you're the same poster who thinks this:

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because that is PRIVATE PROPERTY

You are REALLY dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun ownership is a right. You have no argument until 2/3 of the states repeal the second amendment . If you choose to nullify the constitution ... You will bring on the end of your comfortable existence .

Great. Show me where that right includes you being able to hide your gun ownership from the public.

Also, this whole "end of your comfortable existence" just got filed along with last month's declarations that America is Done For, after Obama won. You and your pathetic little band of Walter Mittys. Probably don't even know shit about firearms.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Note the Liberty part?

How one cannot see all the layoffs, joblessness, etc. around them and see that as a good thing, is amazing. Now THAT'S being Walter Mitty!

It appears you do not understand what "Walter Mitty" refers to. And I don't see how gun regulation will lead to unemployment increases for America, unless by reducing the number of dead males of working age.

I do understand but it's no surprise you thought I meant gun regulation will lead to unemployment. There already IS tremendous unemployment and other negatives as Obama tries to create his utopia and liberals, hell bent on some hippie 'we all have to be equal and life will be beautiful" trip, folllow him like lemmings off the cliff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun ownership is a right. You have no argument until 2/3 of the states repeal the second amendment . If you choose to nullify the constitution ... You will bring on the end of your comfortable existence .

Great. Show me where that right includes you being able to hide your gun ownership from the public.

Also, this whole "end of your comfortable existence" just got filed along with last month's declarations that America is Done For, after Obama won. You and your pathetic little band of Walter Mittys. Probably don't even know shit about firearms.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Note the Liberty part?

How one cannot see all the layoffs, joblessness, etc. around them and see that as a good thing, is amazing. Now THAT'S being Walter Mitty!

How many times does this need to be explained? Liberty has limits. You can't drive your car drunk, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, and you shouldn't be able to turn your house into an arsenal without taking some responsibility for it.

Owning a gun is not a crime. Driving drunk is. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because that is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Owning a gun in itself, is not a crime, nor is it irresponsible. Treating all gun-owners as if they are irresponsible and have already committed a crime is indeed about liberty.