Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

reply to post by Kashai

The Constitution gives every American citizen the right to have weapons

no, the Constitution doesn't and we've discussed this before.
your choice to remain ignorant of the facts is noted.

then you go on to ask ...

Can you be more specific as to how our government has actually done that?

in response to this statement by OBE ... [color=amber] but our Government has been known to operated outside of its limits on a fairly consistent basis -- stretching their authority and bending it to their whim to meet the ends they want.

now, i graciously gave you 2 examples that clearly answer your silly, off-topic question.

to continue discussing either is off-topic and as stated previously, start your own thread or get back on topic.

your grossly misinformed impressions aren't the topic here, either.
yeah, yeah, sure right, take it to a SH thread, it doesn't belong here.

as Dennis said ... the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms ... it doesn't provide it.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

This infringes on the Right apparently

yes, it does.

If violence is shown they should lose the "privilege"

it cannot be both
when you figure out which is correct then carry on ... until then, u got some studying to do.

I think citizens should be allowed to own any type of gun

well, at least you got this part right

background checks are uselss, ineffective, time consuming, cost prohibitive and a general nuissance.

Any history of violence should be a disqualifier

already is for a legal purchase.
so, why do those who are refused get guns anyway ??
and, what do any of the proposed legislative acts do to address or correct it ???

reply to post by Honor93

when you figure out which is correct then carry on ... until then, u got some studying to do.

No you don't understand. I understand this.... I just don't have an automatic hang-up if it violates it. I'm quite progressive like that. Clearly you wouldn't agree, that's okay, but it's not a lack of familiarity on my part.

Originally posted by Cuervo
A car requires you to take a test and prove that you know how to operate it safely.

So those incidents where a 15 year old goes out joy-riding; he took this test? Even more, just because you can pass some test doesn't mean you operate the vehicle in a safe manner.....just drive on the freeways of Los Angeles; they all passed your coveted test and still drive dangerously.

It's funny that pro-gun conservatives keep bringing up comparisons like cars because their own example requires you to jump through the very hoops we want for guns in order to operate.

Hi, my name is Mark. I wasn't aware that you know me so intimately to label me with such fine detail. Put that broad brush away; you don't know me or my politics.

Many liberals are pro-gun but we aren't pro-stupid. There's a difference and it's perfectly reasonable to request that buying a SKS or an AR15 or even a classic hunting rifle require some proof of non-stupid. Seriously, it's not that much to ask for.

Never have I even touched on that details of the subject.

I don't care if you carry; I just want to know that you know how to responsibly handle it. Like they do with cars.

See above....passing a test or whatever doesn't make one safe......didn't you just say you want proof of "non-stupid"?!

reply to post by Honor93


Those two examples are clearly inappropriate and based upon your conclusion I would still be a slave. My Great. great, great. grandfather fought under then General Thomas Jefferson as an Indentured servant. For the purposes of taking what is today, the state of Florida away from Spain. I have a descendant who fought in the civil war as well as one would fought in the Civil war and was a General for the south ,a few native Americans were generals during that war and I am a descendant of one of them

What is silly about your response is that these weapons are understandably irrelevant in an armed conflict, with any current army in the world. 10,000 men with these weapons against a Division of a fully equipped American military division is a joke. I am asking you to provide something more or less unrelated to a neurosis in relation to why you think today the US would violate its constitution.

Something beyond the issue that we took away your slaves, so your are now worried about your guns.

For the record, every first male born member of my family has dedicated himself to serve this country.

I am no different ......

All you have provided me is evidence that you really have no idea as to what you are talking about

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

when you refer to a 'right' as a privilege, you DO NOT know or understand that of which you speak.

if you don't believe or care that your right is being infringed, fine ... as an American (if you be), it is your duty to stand with and for those who do.
not be willing to concede THEIR right cause you don't care

if that's 'progressive', i'll pass.
no wonder they've been circling the drain for 50yrs

reply to post by Kashai

your assumptions are unapplicable and not relative to the topic.
2nd

reply to post by Honor93

when you refer to a 'right' as a privilege, you DO NOT know or understand that of which you speak.

The person not understanding is you.

I understand what a Right is as defined. Again, I am not unfamiliar. You are not actually absorbing what I am saying.

I will be more clear.

I think gun ownership should be a privilege instead. I believe in conditions. I think only citizens that have background checks, do not have a history of violence, should be able to purchase a legal gun or continue to own one. If it's in violation of the Right, and renders it a 'privilege', than so be it. I believe changes sometimes need to be made. Do you understand now? I support gun ownership, of any gun type. I even support carrying them in public. I consider myself pro-gun. You probably don't.

reply to post by Kashai

actually, what is sad rather funny is this commentary of yours.
with the family history you stated , they ought to be rolling in their graves knowing you're willingness to piss their efforts away.

What is silly about your response is that these weapons are understandably irrelevant in an armed conflict, with any current army in the world.

yeah, yeah, tell it to the ME.

10,000 men with these weapons against a Division of a fully equipped American military division is a joke.

goodl luck getting a fully equipped AMD against civilians

I am asking you to provide something more or less unrelated to a neurosis in relation to why you think today the US would violate its constitution.

this is the first you've posed such a question and still yet ... it's not even close to on-topic :shame:
because it's been done repeatedly and if it works, why stop now ??

how many examples do you need ?
undeclared wars
government running guns and drugs in theatre
government ordering drone kills

again, the list goes on and on and on some more, however, none of this is on-topic.

last chance ... get back on topic.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

i did not put words in your mouth or make you type them
you said it, i called you on it ... now, get over it.

and you're also correct, i don't understand why ppl who cannot differentiate between the two think they have any valid opinion at all.

like i said, ppl of this opinion, should be punished for promoting it ... like it used to be.

I think gun ownership should be a privilege instead.

i understand what you 'think', however, you nor they have offered ANY viable method of achieving it, that's the problem.

well, luckily, most of America disagrees with your opinion, hallelujah.

yes, i could agree with pro-gun, even though you're clearly Anti-2nd Amendment
or should we just call it what it is ... Anti-American.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kashai

 

your assumptions are unapplicable and not relative to the topic.
2nd

Actually with respect to the data I have provided in respect to Sandy Hook Elementary you are free to investigate. I can assure you that you will find I have presented a point that is fact. In relation to alternative concerns, I seriously do not understand your concerns. With respect to the United States keeping to it Constitution,

I see no point to comparing the US today to a time past 1901 when, it is considered plausible that a Vice President was responsible for assassinating a President. If you were to provide a more current matter, that I could review. Unrelated to Slavery in the United States, perhaps i could understand where you are coming from. Again in order to "take your all your guns away, " the constitution would have to be amended, I see no real effort today in that respect and am wondering, what is your problem?


For the record I have hunted deer and essentially we are allowed 3 bullets

reply to post by Kashai

what utter nonsense.
what does any of this have to do with the 2nd Amendment guarantee to the people of the USA ??

shall not be infringed is absolute.
we foolishly agreed to compromise more than once, i wouldn't count on it again.

your hunting adventures have nothing to do with the Constitution or the 2nd or Dennis.

reply to post by Honor93

you said it, i called you on it ... now, get over it.

What on Earth are you talking about?

What have I denied exactly? I was pretty darn clear, especially with my last post, and I am certainly not ashamed of my position or hesitant to share it.

and you're also correct, i don't understand why ppl who cannot differentiate between the two think they have any valid opinion at all.

I can, and DID differentiate between 'right' and 'privilege'. What you stubbornly refuse to accept is that I understand it, I am just not in agreement the system should be impervious to change. I don't believe it's perfect, with no potential need for alterations. Obviously we differ there, but stop saying I don't understand. It's absurd.

like i said, ppl of this opinion, should be punished for promoting it ... like it used to be.

So Mr. Constitutionalist how do you reconcile that with Amendment 1 exactly!?

And do you need to borrow some tar and feathers?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

could this be any more childish ?
your commentary is quoted on the same page as this post

again, a right is a right ... not a privilege.
nor is it eligible to be converted to one.

the 'system' didn't create the 'right' hence it has no authority to convert it to a privilege.

it's not absurd.
you simply refuse to acknowledge the impossibility of your 'desire'.

same as you do for the 2nd ... "conditions, remember?"
can't have one without effecting the others, can we ?

no one is saying you cannot say/promote it, however, there will be consequences ... fair ??

like i said, it's a right, it is not negotiable, is it ?

reply to post by Honor93

could this be any more childish ?

I was wondering that myself

again, a right is a right ... not a privilege.
nor is it eligible to be converted to one.

You don't understand my posts. There is no reason to continue this with you. I was quite lucid in the explanation.

no one is saying you cannot say/promote it, however, there will be consequences ... fair ??

Nice recovery

like i said, it's a right, it is not negotiable, is it ?

I question the infallibility of the source, not the definition.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

So Mr. Constitutionalist how do you reconcile that with Amendment 1 exactly!?

When you break the law you can't point to another law as a defense. Just say'in.

reply to post by randyvs


If you wan't to support him and not address how plainly hypocritical he was. I support your Right to free speech on that.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Here's what I do support.
My right to own any weapon I can be issued in the military to carry into battle. i deserve the best of my own choosing as a man to defend country and home. Period.

reply to post by randyvs


Fantastic.

Read my posts.

We share the same view

*assuming you're okay with a background check

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Whether or not I was okay with a background check doesn't matter. It's here to stay even to get a job. But of course I think that's reasonable.