Don't be surprised if your doctor asks you about guns

[Restored]

All these mass shootings were done with registered guns so it is a moot point.

[Jazzhead]

Then can we say your claim we are protected against confiscation by the Constitution is false?  Or will you stop making both claims?

I don't know why you insist that I admit to making "false" claims.  The Heller decision indeed says the 2A protects the individual RKBA.  But the plain text of the 2A, arguably, suggests otherwise.   Yes, the Heller decision represents the law of the land - so, yes, the 2A protects your right.  But are you not concerned that this decision could be overturned, and the view of the dissent adopted as the majority?   I am, and have proposed that the Congress act now, while it still can, to codify the result in Heller.     

Other portions of the Constitution are also relevant including (as I have argued) the Ninth Amendment which provides a basis for the the protection of other, un-enumerated natural rights such as the right to privacy,  and well as the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process and the Constitution's prohibition regarding the taking of property without compensation. 

[thackney]

I don't know why you insist that I admit to making "false" claims.

Because you repeatedly make conflicting claims.

For example: The Constitution protects our right to have our guns AND the Constitution does not provide the individual right to have our guns.

You just don't make them in the same post.

You give reasons for vehicle registration that are not true.  You don't sign a waiver to avoid registration, you don't have to provide intended purpose.  The law requires registration to use on public roads, not ownership or intent of use, only where.  But then that truth doesn't fit the analogy you try to use to justify gun registration.

[thackney]

All these mass shootings were done with registered guns so it is a moot point.

Registration does nothing to prevent crime, injury or death by the guns.  It only provides limitations for ownership and transfer of property.

[driftdiver]

Registration does nothing to prevent crime, injury or death by the guns.  It only provides limitations for ownership and transfer of property.

Its not about reducing crime, preventing injuries or death.

Its about control and subordination of the people under the heal of the government.

[RoosGirl]

Documentation is helpful to the police by linking guns to their owners.   It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own.   
   

Does that mean you'll also be heading the charge for registration of my ice pick, hammers, machetes, kitchen knives and ninja throwing stars?

[driftdiver]

Does that mean you'll also be heading the charge for registration of my ice pick, hammers, machetes, kitchen knives and ninja throwing stars?

@RoosGirl
I would have thought you used all those up last night.

[RoosGirl]

@RoosGirl
I would have thought you used all those up last night.

I'll just have to go dig up another cache from the back 40.

[Restored]

But the plain text of the 2A, arguably, suggests otherwise.   

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

[Sanguine]

All these mass shootings were done with registered guns so it is a moot point.

 

[Jazzhead]

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[INVAR]

The efficacy of registration upon the safe use of firearms is influenced in part by whether (as is the case with motor vehicles) it is coupled with an insurance requirement.

Once again, more bullshit to argue that an inalienable Right that Shall Not Be Infringed, is really just a government-granted privilege once a citizen complies with Jazzhead's imposition of tyrannical bureaucracy.  Because you see - you have no right to exercise your right unless you first comply with his scheme of registering your guns and then paying ridiculous insurance fees just to be able to possess one.

Look bub, our Rights are inalienable and insoluble - meaning you and your government may not touch them, impede them, infringe upon them or otherwise make requirements upon us before we are permitted and allowed to exercise them.

Which is all your harebrained tyrannical scheme does.  Turns a Right into a privilege you and your government grant only after we comply with their demands.

NOPE.  NOT. GONNA.  HAPPEN.

But registration is the tool by which the deadly device (car or gun) is linked to the person with color of legal responsibility,  and effectively compels him to dispose of the device in a documented manner.

Exactly.  This is why registration is always demanded by tyrants and genocidal maniacs in power.   It gives them the tool by which private property can be linked to the person that they intend to be compelled to dispose of the device when it is documented that they must be turned into government officials for destruction.   

So no - we are not going to comply with any registration orders, bills, laws or decrees.

Confiscation is not the objective, and the Constitution's protections are the means to ensure that.     

BULLSHIT.  Confiscation is PRECISELY the objective, and any attempt to impose your sick scheme of registration will be regarded as such.  We will not comply.

You will have to empower your government to slaughter us to attempt to force compliance with any registration or insurance demands made due to your advocacy.

[Restored]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's what I said.

[thackney]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

- - - - - - - - -

It amazes me that some would claim these are not the same people in each amendment.

[Victoria33]

Does that mean you'll also be heading the charge for registration of my ice pick, hammers, machetes, kitchen knives and ninja throwing stars?

@RoosGirl
@mystery-ak
@txradioguy
@thackney
@Cyber Liberty
@CatherineofAragon

Your comment above answered this question posed to you: "It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own."

Besides what you suggest to remove, "ice pick, hammers, machetes, kitchen knives and ninja throwing stars", your list is incomplete.  Here is a partial list of other "killing devices" that must be removed from your house:

1.  Remove all salt from your house.  If a person eats a whole cup of salt, they die.
2.  Take out any natural gas stove.  If the flame goes out, and it doesn't have an automatic shut off, gas will kill everyone in the house.
3.  Remove pots and pans - if hit in the head by these objects, the hit person can die.
4.  Remove regular shoes/boots from your house - it hit in the head by these objects, the hit person can die.
5.  Remove all electric in the wall outlets.  Put a metal object in the outlet for contact and the person can die of electric shock.
6.  Remove tubs from bathrooms.  People can drown in bathtubs.
7.  Have your hands amputated as hands can strangle people to death.
8.  Remove any steps from inside a house, people can fall and die.
9.  Remove any shelf in a house that requires a person to stand on a ladder to reach it - people can fall and die.
10. Remove all ladders from a house; people can fall and die.
11. Remove all electric recliners that raise one up - the power could go off mid-rise, and the person would be stuck half up and half down.  That could cause the person to get anxious and die of a heart attack.
12. Remove all hardware in the kitchen that produces heat to cook food.  The person could get burned and die.
13. Remove pillows from beds; a person could get the pillow on the face and die from not being able to breathe.
14. Remove ceiling fans from rooms.  A tall person could get his/her head cut off by the blades.  That also causes death as the head must be attached for the body to stay alive.
15. Remove all TVs from rooms as some movies and the news are scary and can cause heart attack/death.
16. Remove all computers from every room. A person can get depressed when someone "unfriends" them and they commit suicide.  It is the computer's fault so remove them.
17. Remove all cell phones.  They kill people all the time; people in cars using them; people dying from not eating because they can't put down their phone to eat; people die from no sleep as they can't put down their phone.  People die from no fingers as they wear them down from tweeting so much.  That is why the president has small hands; they are worn down.

Let me know when you have completed this list to make your house safe from deadly killing machines.

[XenaLee]

@RoosGirl

Your comment above answered this question posed to you: "It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own."

Besides what you suggest to remove, "ice pick, hammers, machetes, kitchen knives and ninja throwing stars", your list is incomplete.  Here is a partial list of other "killing devices" that must be removed from your house:

1.  Remove all salt from your house.  If a person eats a whole cup of salt, they die.
2.  Take out any natural gas stove.  If the flame goes out, and it doesn't have an automatic shut off, gas will kill everyone in the house.
3.  Remove pots and pans - if hit in the head by these objects, the hit person can die.
4.  Remove regular shoes/boots from your house - it hit in the head by these objects, the hit person can die.
5.  Remove all electric in the wall outlets.  Put a metal object in the outlet for contact and the person can die of electric shock.
6.  Remove tubs from bathrooms.  People can drown in bathtubs.
7.  Have your hands amputated as hands can strangle people to death.
8.  Remove any steps from inside a house, people can fall and die.
9.  Remove any shelf in a house that requires a person to stand on a ladder to reach it - people can fall and die.
10. Remove all ladders from a house; people can fall and die.
11. Remove all electric recliners that raise one up - the power could go off mid-rise, and the person would be stuck half up and half down.  That could cause the person to get anxious and die of a heart attack.
12. Remove all hardware in the kitchen that produces heat to cook food.  The person could get burned and die.
13. Remove pillows from beds; a person could get the pillow on the face and die from not being able to breathe.
14. Remove ceiling fans from rooms.  A tall person could get his/her head cut off by the blades.  That also causes death as the head must be attached for the body to stay alive.
15. Remove all TVs from rooms as some movies and the news are scary and can cause heart attack/death.
16. Remove all computers from every room. A person can get depressed when someone "unfriends" them and they commit suicide.  It is the computer's fault so remove them.
17. Remove all cell phones.  They kill people all the time; people in cars using them; people dying from not eating because they can't put down their phone to eat; people die from no sleep as they can't put down their phone.  People die from no fingers as they wear them down from tweeting so much.  That is why the president has small hands; they are worn down.

Let me know when you have completed this list to make your house safe from deadly killing machines.
15. Remove

Me?  I like to live on the edge, if not dangerously.  So.... I'll keep all those items you listed there.  In fact, if you can think of any other deadly items I don't have, I'd appreciate the suggestion so I can shop appropriately.

One item I thought of is extension cords.  You can have a nasty (deadly) fall from tripping over one.  I know first-hand... since I'm extremely "ungraceful" in the mornings ...especially before I've had my caffeine fix.  Garden rakes....yikes.   I have a very lethal garden out there!

 

[Cyber Liberty]

Me?  I like to live on the edge, if not dangerously.  So.... I'll keep all those items you listed there.  In fact, if you can think of any other deadly items I don't have, I'd appreciate the suggestion so I can shop appropriately.

One item I thought of is extension cords.  You can have a nasty (deadly) fall from tripping over one.  I know first-hand... since I'm extremely "ungraceful" in the mornings ...especially before I've had my caffeine fix.  Garden rakes....yikes.   I have a very lethal garden out there!

 

You're already half-way there.  That caffeine can be as fatal as the salt @Victoria33 references in item #1.

[INVAR]

Your comment above answered this question posed to you: "It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own."

Make no mistake, Jazzhead is not interested in anything that makes any of us 'safe' or responsible in our homes.  He is only interested in making sure he and his government goons are safe when they go about the task of disarming us so that our subjugation can be accomplished with minimal risk to them.

This is because Jazzhead is up scared all night long thinking about all the guns Roamer_1 has bought off the back of a truck in the woods.  Jazzhead doesn't want to live in a country where such people live their lives unmolested by government agents, so such people need to be subjugated to stringent controls of the kind he proposes, or eradicated.

[Jazzhead]

It amazes me that some would claim these are not the same people in each amendment.

Have it your way, @thackney.   Just don't blame me when the Dems transform the SCOTUS and prescribe meaning to the 2A's predicate clause.

Just don't say I didn't warn you.   

[Victoria33]

One item I thought of is extension cords.  You can have a nasty (deadly) fall from tripping over one. 
 

@XenaLee

Thanks for the extension cord - I missed that deadly one - fall over it or use it to strangle someone to death.

[XenaLee]

You're already half-way there.  That caffeine can be as fatal as the salt @Victoria33 references in item #1.

You betcha!  And they can pry my java and my salt from my cold, dead hands....

and there might even be a bag of potato chips.   

Viva la vida al máximo!!!

[XenaLee]

@XenaLee

Thanks for the extension cord - I missed that deadly one - fall over it or use it to strangle someone to death.

Hmmm.... all those married years and I never even thought of that one.  W T H ???

I did, however, have a shredder.   

[Jazzhead]

Make no mistake, Jazzhead is not interested in anything that makes any of us 'safe' or responsible in our homes.  He is only interested in making sure he and his government goons are safe when they go about the task of disarming us so that our subjugation can be accomplished with minimal risk to them.

This is because Jazzhead is up scared all night long thinking about all the guns Roamer_1 has bought off the back of a truck in the woods.  Jazzhead doesn't want to live in a country where such people live their lives unmolested by government agents, so such people need to be subjugated to stringent controls of the kind he proposes, or eradicated.

What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed.   If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms,  you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers.  What you seek is anarchy.

 

[Victoria33]

Make no mistake, Jazzhead is not interested in anything that makes any of us 'safe' or responsible in our homes.  He is only interested in making sure he and his government goons are safe when they go about the task of disarming us so that our subjugation can be accomplished with minimal risk to them.  This is because Jazzhead is up scared all night long thinking about all the guns Roamer_1 has bought off the back of a truck in the woods.  Jazzhead doesn't want to live in a country where such people live their lives unmolested by government agents, so such people need to be subjugated to stringent controls of the kind he proposes, or eradicated.

@INVAR

Sometimes, being older has its advantage.  Some of the weapons I have, I inherited them from family members who got them before records of any kind were kept.

Here is why government keeps getting in our lives and won't stop:
When a person is elected to a state legislature, or to federal congress, the person must do something to put in front of the public to get elected again.  It is making laws that give them something to brag about to get elected again.  The first number of laws that were passed in our first government, needed to be passed. 

As years went by, no more laws were required, but more had to be passed for the officials to be elected again.  That is why new laws will be passed - forever.  Our Texas legislature meets every TWO years - that gives us a year without new laws.  In states where their legislature always stays in session, more laws will be forced on the citizens EVERY year.  Our US  congress meets eternally, so we are continually losing our freedoms and it can't stop due to the Reps/Senators cooking up laws to get reelected.

[INVAR]

What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed.

I do not consent to be governed by people or their entities that do not recognize or think they can reasonably infringe upon my inalienable rights.

Anyone whose intentions are to transform inalienable rights into government-granted privileges only permitted to be exercised after complying with government regulations and paying specific fees and obtaining specific grants and insurance - is not someone who has any regard for our former Constitutional Republic, and not the kind of people or system I consent to be governed by.

Your proposals makes you a tyrant wannabe of the worst sort. 

If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms,  you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers.  What you seek is anarchy.

What I seek, is to make tyrant wannabes like yourself scared shitless of what people like us will do when you idiots make that last mistake.

I don't care if you want to call it anarchy.  Just be afraid, because our will to resist you and your intentions is real and indomitable.

[INVAR]

Here is why government keeps getting in our lives and won't stop:

It is making laws that give them something to brag about to get elected again. 

It's actually simpler than that.

People want free shit at the expense of someone else without any responsibility and they are happy to use government to achieve that in addition to the fact your neighbors do not trust you with liberty.  They only trust government.

And government and it's members are all-too-happy to oblige that, because it keeps them in power.

Human nature covets wealth and power, and when wealth achieves power, human nature imposes control to ensure there is no threat to their wealth and power.

A people who are ignorant of our foundations are a people who want to be subjects, not citizens.

[thackney]

What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed.   If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms,  you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers.  What you seek is anarchy.

What we seek is consent of governed.  You seek a government that doesn't exist in this country, thankfully.

[Jazzhead]

I don't care if you want to call it anarchy.  Just be afraid, because our will to resist you and your intentions is real and indomitable.

 

[Elderberry]

I saw activity on this thread, and it struck me. I thought up a reason that made sense, at least to me, why a doctor would ask about guns.

But then I saw that this thread had perverted to registration.

My thought though, if once the doc asked about guns, he would continue to ask if you were a reloader? And if so, he would ask if you cast your own bullets? And if you did, do you do your bullet casting in a well ventilated area to prevent the inhalation of lead vapors? We may need to test you for lead.

That was my thought. Feel free to beat that Dead Horse some more.

[Restored]

Jazz: We need to register guns.
Me: They are already registered
Jazz: We need to register them more.

Jazz, cars kill more people than guns. Why do we register cars first?

[Cyber Liberty]

I saw activity on this thread, and it struck me. I thought up a reason that made sense, at least to me, why a doctor would ask about guns.

But then I saw that this thread had perverted to registration.

My thought though, if once the doc asked about guns, he would continue to ask if you were a reloader? And if so, he would ask if you cast your own bullets? And if you did, do you do your bullet casting in a well ventilated area to prevent the inhalation of lead vapors? We may need to test you for lead.

That was my thought. Feel free to beat that Dead Horse some more.

If your Doc is a real suck-up to the politically correct Powers That Be, he'd be asking about guns to see if you are "sick" enough to simply own a gun (as defined by the CDC).  It has nothing to do with the harmful physiological effects of lead casting, but of the harmful societal effects of being one of those dreaded owners of Killing Machines.  (Especially if you are completely irresponsible and don't depend on daddy government to keep a list of who has these evil instruments.)  He may even be the sort to make sure his pals in the government are provided with the results of that exam room interrogation (it may even be required in some states).  Doctors don't work for the patients anymore, nor even the Insurance companies.  They work for the bureau that licenses them in that state, and they serve at their pleasure.

That's how the thread got onto the subject of "registration."  Sorry if that was not your expectation.

[Elderberry]

I post  with no preconceived expectations. I just throw it out there.

[driftdiver]

I post  with no preconceived expectations. I just throw it out there.

@Elderberry
The move to encourage doctors to ask patients about gun ownership doesn't have its foundation in healthcare.  The concept was created out of the gun control movement and is an effort to use medical doctors to pressure people with firearms.   Dangerous considering your MD can declare you unfit and dangerous and have you hospitalized.   Never to possess a legal firearm again.

Which is their ultimate goal.

[driftdiver]

@Jazzhead
Your responses are an excellent example of why gunowners have very little trust and reject so called offers to compromise.

While you say repeatedly that you don't want to ban guns and just want common sense laws the truth is there in  your posts.    You are simply hiding your ultimate goal in an effort to push your agenda.

 No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.   Which is why nobody believes a word you say when you say you support the 2nd Amendment and nobody trust the left.  Because you both have lied time after time.

[INVAR]

@Jazzhead
Your responses are an excellent example of why gunowners have very little trust and reject so called offers to compromise.

While you say repeatedly that you don't want to ban guns and just want common sense laws the truth is there in  your posts.    You are simply hiding your ultimate goal in an effort to push your agenda.

 No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.   Which is why nobody believes a word you say when you say you support the 2nd Amendment and nobody trust the left.  Because you both have lied time after time.

He does what all Leftist Trolls do on Conservative forum boards.

It amuses them and also provides them the space to try and inflict their agenda on the easily beguiled and ignorant.

He is being shown that crap he spews doesn't fly here.

[roamer_1]

Some do, some don't.   The point is there is far more incentive for the owner of a registered gun to report it stolen than the owner of an unregistered and untraceable gun.

I have guns, properly stored, that I haven't seen in years.  How the hell would I know if they've been stolen? And how does my not reporting (because unaware) make me responsible for whatever a criminal may do?

Documentation is helpful to the police by linking guns to their owners.   It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own.   

LOL! Howabout the truckloads of guns that will come over the border to fuel the market? how are you going to register those? because those are the ones that the criminals will be using.

This whole line of thinking assumes a radically closed system which hilariously untrue... And always will be.
 

[roamer_1]

This is because Jazzhead is up scared all night long thinking about all the guns Roamer_1 has bought off the back of a truck in the woods.  Jazzhead doesn't want to live in a country where such people live their lives unmolested by government agents, so such people need to be subjugated to stringent controls of the kind he proposes, or eradicated.

@INVAR
That's exactly right. And the funny part is, if all of his wet dreams came true, those trucks would still be there, and I'd still be buying my guns there.

And there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it. All that would have happened at that point is that he will have made me a criminal for doing so...

[roamer_1]

What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed.   If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms,  you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers.  What you seek is anarchy.

Your 'peoples representatives' are prevented from doing so by our founding documents. That they would do so anyway is not law, but the color of law. Our founding document, the DoI, provides the remedy and duty in that instance.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead
Your responses are an excellent example of why gunowners have very little trust and reject so called offers to compromise.

While you say repeatedly that you don't want to ban guns and just want common sense laws the truth is there in  your posts.    You are simply hiding your ultimate goal in an effort to push your agenda.

 No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.   Which is why nobody believes a word you say when you say you support the 2nd Amendment and nobody trust the left.  Because you both have lied time after time.

 

[roamer_1]

Your proposals makes you a tyrant wannabe of the worst sort. 

That's right... Liberals all think they know better than you, and they're doing it 'for your own good'. There ain't a worse kind.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

 No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.   

Bullshit.  Absolutely untrue.  I do not participate on this board to lie and promote some hidden agenda, but rather to state my opinions on the issues of the day.  In a nutshell:

1.  I support the individual RKBA.   I support the Heller decision that says so, although I fear that the decision is fragile because the language of the 2A is flawed.   I advocate doing something to codify Heller in order in ENSURE THAT YOUR RKBA REMAINS PROTECTED.

2.  I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to confiscate your guns.  NONE.   I have repeatedly said I oppose lib attempts to limit the kinds and quantities of guns you want.  I have merely supported licensure and registration, same as with motor vehicles.  As far as I am concerned,  so long as you register them, you can own a dozen AR-15s.   

3.  Unlike many here, I have faith in this Constitutional Republic to protect against confiscation of legally owned firearms.   I do not consider this nation a "tyranny", but rather a nation of laws,  enacted by lawmakers who govern with the consent of the governed.  And backstopped by a judiciary obliged to uphold the rights of citizens as provided for in the Constitution.

I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before.  I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.     

[roamer_1]

I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before.  I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.   

I don't think that will pass muster with anyone here...

[INVAR]

That's right... Liberals all think they know better than you, and they're doing it 'for your own good'. There ain't a worse kind.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

This describes Jazzy to a T, seeking to impose a meddlesome tyranny for our own good, while he insists he is not a gun-grabbing-homo-shoving Leftist nut job pretending to be a Conservative.

Not a single solitary issue I have ever read from him on this board could be construed by anyone with a brain to resemble a Conservative position or idea.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think that will pass muster with anyone here...

I learned when I was knee-high to a grasshopper that when the mouth goes one way and the actions go another, believe the actions.

[Cyber Liberty]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

This describes Jazzy to a T, seeking to impose a meddlesome tyranny for our own good, while he insists he is not a gun-grabbing-homo-shoving Leftist nut job pretending to be a Conservative.

Not a single solitary issue I have ever read from him on this board could be construed by anyone with a brain to resemble a Conservative position or idea.

Liberals hate Lewis, and call him stoopit.

[roamer_1]

This describes Jazzy to a T, seeking to impose a meddlesome tyranny for our own good, while he insists he is not a gun-grabbing-homo-shoving Leftist nut job pretending to be a Conservative.

Not a single solitary issue I have ever read from him on this board could be construed by anyone with a brain to resemble a Conservative position or idea.

Exactly right, and on all counts...
And that CS Lewis quote is among the most erudite.

[roamer_1]

I learned when I was knee-high to a grasshopper that when the mouth goes one way and the actions go another, believe the actions.

That's right... And why one must always return to the principles of conservatism - without them, it can be anything folks might come up with, and call 'conservative'.

[Axeslinger]

Bullshit.  Absolutely untrue.  I do not participate on this board to lie and promote some hidden agenda, but rather to state my opinions on the issues of the day.  In a nutshell:

1.  I support the individual RKBA.   I support the Heller decision that says so, although I fear that the decision is fragile because the language of the 2A is flawed.   I advocate doing something to codify Heller in order in ENSURE THAT YOUR RKBA REMAINS PROTECTED.

2.  I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to confiscate your guns.  NONE.   I have repeatedly said I oppose lib attempts to limit the kinds and quantities of guns you want.  I have merely supported licensure and registration, same as with motor vehicles.  As far as I am concerned,  so long as you register them, you can own a dozen AR-15s.   

3.  Unlike many here, I have faith in this Constitutional Republic to protect against confiscation of legally owned firearms.   I do not consider this nation a "tyranny", but rather a nation of laws,  enacted by lawmakers who govern with the consent of the governed.  And backstopped by a judiciary obliged to uphold the rights of citizens as provided for in the Constitution.

I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before.  I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.   

m
@Jazzhead

Ok I’m gonna try (and fail, forewarning) to not lose my temper on your silly ass.

We DONT BELIEVE YOU.   We think you are lying troll.  Your own doublespeak has caused this.  Try and lawyer your way out of it all you want, we don’t give a shit.  You are either a liar or a drooling moron. 

See, because here’s the rub: you say you don’t want anyone taking our guns...but that’s exactly what happens when your bullshit schemes are employed.   We’ve told you this ad nauseum and yet you keep spouting it.  Therefore, you have a different agenda, one we’ve seen many times.  WE WILL NOT COMPLY!  And if the left tries to implement your bullshit schemes as your concern troll keeps telling us, the same end result happens:  it’s time to water the tree.  So in short, come up with new material, volunteer to go on the raids or STFU!

[driftdiver]

Bullshit.  Absolutely untrue.  I do not participate on this board to lie and promote some hidden agenda, but rather to state my opinions on the issues of the day.  In a nutshell:

1.  I support the individual RKBA.   I support the Heller decision that says so, although I fear that the decision is fragile because the language of the 2A is flawed.   I advocate doing something to codify Heller in order in ENSURE THAT YOUR RKBA REMAINS PROTECTED.

2.  I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to confiscate your guns.  NONE.   I have repeatedly said I oppose lib attempts to limit the kinds and quantities of guns you want.  I have merely supported licensure and registration, same as with motor vehicles.  As far as I am concerned,  so long as you register them, you can own a dozen AR-15s.   

3.  Unlike many here, I have faith in this Constitutional Republic to protect against confiscation of legally owned firearms.   I do not consider this nation a "tyranny", but rather a nation of laws,  enacted by lawmakers who govern with the consent of the governed.  And backstopped by a judiciary obliged to uphold the rights of citizens as provided for in the Constitution.

I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before.  I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.   

@Jazzhead

You're twisting of words is bullshit.  You've insulted gun owners.  You've said we are a threat to our neighbors.

All while pushing nonsense that does nothing to reduce crime but does make it much more difficult to own a firearm.  Your doubletalk is exactly what so many closet anti gunners do.

It's why I will not support a single step down the path of compromise.  Because nothing is enough for you guys except a total ban.