3 family members killed in Chicago suburb home invasion

[OldTrapper]

I am allowing you maximum opportunity to make fools of yourselves and you are grabbing it with both hands

I notice that you lot haven't come back with any real challenge to my post on Thatcher.

I will sort you all out on that one too.

What makes me laugh out loud is that you could check this information yourselves but you would rather stick your chin out for me punch it and I promise you numbnuts you are going to be waking up with a crowd round you.

Liar. You have never straightened anyone out on anything, and I doubt if you could straighten anything out between your legs. That is the kind of person you are. If you could you would, and so far you never have.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Out of curiosity, do you agree that society has the right to set some...reasonable limits on an individual's right to bear arms?

Limits that would be obeyed only by the law-abiding (i.e. the people whom society does NOT need to artificially limit), but ignored by the lawbreaking among us (the people at whom the laws are actually aimed)?

Of course not. What good would such "limits" do?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Apparently little "rationalist" has plenty of time to publish posts telling us how devastating his evidence will be.

But no time to actually post the evidence.

 

[GenSeneca]

Out of curiosity, do you agree that society has the right to set some...reasonable limits on an individual's right to bear arms?

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There are no reasonable limits... Criminals do not adhere to the law.

 

[Devil505]

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There are no reasonable limits... Criminals do not adhere to the law.

Apparently little "rationalist" has plenty of time to publish posts telling us how devastating his evidence will be.

But no time to actually post the evidence.

So if your neighbor (.....You know, the one.....with the crazy 15 year old son who likes to torture animals & tried suicide...twice) decides he wants to buy a small, inexpensive tactical nuclear weapon (for home defense) You have no problem with that?

 

[GenSeneca]

So if your neighbor (.....You know, the one.....with the crazy 15 year old son who likes to torture animals & tried suicide...twice) decides he wants to buy a small, inexpensive tactical nuclear weapon (for home defense) You have no problem with that?

Where does a 15 year old get a few million to drop on a tactical nuclear weapon?

Other than that, you've got some strange neighbors... Better make sure you have a gun around for home defense.

 

[Devil505]

Where does a 15 year old get a few million to drop on a tactical nuclear weapon?

Other than that, you've got some strange neighbors... Better make sure you have a gun around for home defense.

Sorry...but you "no reasonable limits on our guns" crowd make it bad for the rest of us gun owners who realize that all rights (like free speech) must have their limits. If you want no limits.......go live alone on an island someplace & leave us reasonable gun owners alone..

 

[GenSeneca]

Sorry...but you "no reasonable limits on our guns" crowd make it bad for the rest of us gun owners who realize that all rights (like free speech) must have their limits. If you want no limits.......go live alone on an island someplace & leave us reasonable gun owners alone..

Change the constitution, rather than ignoring it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So if your neighbor (.....You know, the one.....with the crazy 15 year old son who likes to torture animals & tried suicide...twice) decides he wants to buy a small, inexpensive tactical nuclear weapon (for home defense) You have no problem with that?

Nice try at a bizarre change of subject to nuclear weapons.

Back to the subject:

You asked if i would consider "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. I replied:

Limits that would be obeyed only by the law-abiding (i.e. the people whom society does NOT need to artificially limit), but ignored by the lawbreaking among us (the people at whom the laws are actually aimed)?

Of course not. What good would such "limits" do?

Here's another chance for you to respond rather than evading.

 

[Devil505]

Nice try at a bizarre change of subject to nuclear weapons.

Back to the subject:

You asked if i would consider "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. I replied:

Limits that would be obeyed only by the law-abiding (i.e. the people whom society does NOT need to artificially limit), but ignored by the lawbreaking among us (the people at whom the laws are actually aimed)?

Of course not. What good would such "limits" do?

Here's another chance for you to respond rather than evading.

So no laws should ever be written because some people will always break them?...What an ingenious concept!!

(Laws against murder don't stop all murderers, right? ...Let's legalize murder then!

 

[PLC1]

Are Chicagoans not allowed to have guns in their own homes?

Now, that's really going too far.

Anyone who has no criminal record and is mentally stable should be able to get a concealed carry permit. If only the bad guys have guns, then they will have no fear of attacking law abiding citizens.

 

[Devil505]

Are Chicagoans not allowed to have guns in their own homes?

Now, that's really going too far.

Anyone who has no criminal record and is mentally stable should be able to get a concealed carry permit. If only the bad guys have guns, then they will have no fear of attacking law abiding citizens.

Absolutely! The law should default to allowing gun ownership unless there is good reason to disallow an individual from possessing one.
(my argument with the "No Limits" crowd is their fanaticism makes us "normal" gun owners look bad.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So no laws should ever be written because some people will always break them?...What an ingenious concept!!

(Laws against murder don't stop all murderers, right? ...Let's legalize murder then!

Laws that protect our rights by regulating bad acts are good. Laws that regulate inanimate objects, are silly, for the reasons I gave.

Restating the question you evaded yet again:

You asked if i would consider "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. I replied:

Limits that would be obeyed only by the law-abiding (i.e. the people whom society does NOT need to artificially limit), but ignored by the lawbreaking among us (the people at whom the laws are actually aimed)?

Of course not. What good would such "limits" do?

 

[Devil505]

Laws that protect our rights by regulating bad acts are good. Laws that regulate inanimate objects, are silly, for the reasons I gave.

Restating the question you evaded yet again:

You asked if i would consider "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. I replied:

Limits that would be obeyed only by the law-abiding (i.e. the people whom society does NOT need to artificially limit), but ignored by the lawbreaking among us (the people at whom the laws are actually aimed)?

Of course not. What good would such "limits" do?

All laws are only obeyed by "Law abiding citizens"....That's kinda the definition, no?
Your point is absurd.

Laws that regulate inanimate objects, are silly, for the reasons I gave.

So no state should require cars to have brakes that work???

 

[Devil505]

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

Limits of Freedom of Speech

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.
Full text here http://www.freedomforum.org/package...edom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

Similarly, the right to bear arms ...T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed......Has reasonable limits as well.
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html