Would background checks stop mass shootings?

Apr 11, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Local TV Station KTVZ

The tragic shootings in each of these and other towns have ignited public sentiment for some kind of gun reforms and fired up gun advocates to protect what they see as their constitutional right of easy access to firearms.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of186
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

GunShow1 wrote:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]
You have proved you don't even know what the Second Amendment is, GayDAvy.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you obviously haven't read the Bible.
You haven't even read the Second Amendment, GayDavy, and it isn't but one short paragraph.

So you know the bible like you know the Second Amendment?

Eh, GayDavy?

Time to change your alias again?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
“When a strong man armed, keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace”--Jesus, Luke 11:21
Tell us about the firearms Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) was aware of two thousand years ago...

PS: Numbnuts... have someone explain to you what He meant here, He is using what in English is called a *metaphor*.

MET-a-phor.

Look at the entire passage:

"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils"

Numbnuts: Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) is talking about the Devil- Satan, and Satan is a strong-armed man. His palace, Numbnuts, is Hell.

And Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) is not suggesting that to defeat (or keep at bay) the devil one needs firearms or even sharp sticks.
moronfinder

South Boston, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us about the firearms Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) was aware of two thousand years ago...
PS: Numbnuts... have someone explain to you what He meant here, He is using what in English is called a *metaphor*.
MET-a-phor.
Look at the entire passage:
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils"
Numbnuts: Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) is talking about the Devil- Satan, and Satan is a strong-armed man. His palace, Numbnuts, is Hell.
And Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) is not suggesting that to defeat (or keep at bay) the devil one needs firearms or even sharp sticks.
Bravo!
Jonas pepper

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. So where do you draw a limit with arms? Is it just every man for himself, and the guy with the most and/or the biggest wins? And what about the types of arms? One would have to lucidly believe that if the founding fathers saw the kind of damage that modern arms inflict, they would have been mortified, and they would have put limitations on their accessibility. What about grenades? Or flame throwers? Or chemical/biological weapons? And if we don't regulate firearms and other weapons, then why bother with police, or for that matter the military? I really don't believe the vision was for every man to build an Alamo and harm yourself to the teeth. That's a recipe for destruction.
No problem with hunting. No problem with realistic home/personal defense. But having weapons of war among the general population is not only irresponsible, it's absolutely deranged. Why would anyone need a machine gun, and hundreds/thousands of rounds at their disposal? If the argument is "the govt. can't tell me how many bullets I use to defend myself", then that comes across as someone who seems to be a little too paranoid, and maybe a thorough mental health/background check should be in order. Hey, the stats don't lie. If there's a gun in the house, it is more likely to be involved in something bad happening, than something good.
No problem with hunting, defending ones home and self since the supreme court said cops do not provide individual defense (911 dial a prayer).

So why does the department of Homland Security need the drastic quantity of amunition they recently aquired? Machine guns were previously band. You ask why military weapons are needed by the general population; well in the initial days of the Constitution a flint lock musket was a military weapon. Also as a result of an armed America Japan's Military leadership decided not to invade the main land since there was an armed citizen behind every blade of grass.

Further one needs to be well trained thus more bullets are needed. As far as guns in the house contributing to something bad happening? All of mine are well behaved but atleast one of them has scared away some miss behaving people. Further they did not harm any one today or the past few thousand days.
gun advocate

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
I read as much as I could stomach.
So when are you going to write your senator and request they introduce a bill requiring criminals to obey the law?
moronfinder

South Boston, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jonas pepper wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem with hunting, defending ones home and self since the supreme court said cops do not provide individual defense (911 dial a prayer).
So why does the department of Homland Security need the drastic quantity of amunition they recently aquired? Machine guns were previously band. You ask why military weapons are needed by the general population; well in the initial days of the Constitution a flint lock musket was a military weapon. Also as a result of an armed America Japan's Military leadership decided not to invade the main land since there was an armed citizen behind every blade of grass.
Further one needs to be well trained thus more bullets are needed. As far as guns in the house contributing to something bad happening? All of mine are well behaved but atleast one of them has scared away some miss behaving people. Further they did not harm any one today or the past few thousand days.
Oooooh my..........

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us about the firearms Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) was aware of two thousand years ago...
PS: Numbnuts... have someone explain to you what He meant here, He is using what in English is called a *metaphor*.
MET-a-phor.
Look at the entire passage:
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils"
Numbnuts: Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) is talking about the Devil- Satan, and Satan is a strong-armed man. His palace, Numbnuts, is Hell.
And Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) is not suggesting that to defeat (or keep at bay) the devil one needs firearms or even sharp sticks.
Take a hike, you misrepresenting treasonous troll:

To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up...

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth [it], that [men] should fear before him.

That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.--Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, 8, 14, 15.

The LORD [is] a man of war: the LORD [is] his name.--Exodus 15:3

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.--Hebrews 13:8

Biblical Quotes on Arms and Defense
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/p/biblica...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us about the firearms Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) was aware of two thousand years ago...
PS: Numbnuts... have someone explain to you what He meant here, He is using what in English is called a *metaphor*.
MET-a-phor.
Look at the entire passage:
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils"
Numbnuts: Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) is talking about the Devil- Satan, and Satan is a strong-armed man. His palace, Numbnuts, is Hell.
And Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) is not suggesting that to defeat (or keep at bay) the devil one needs firearms or even sharp sticks.
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape....."-- 1 Thess. 5:3

I'm sure you'll be one of the first to fall, treasonous pharisee.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have proved you don't even know what the Second Amendment is, GayDAvy.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The background check up may stop the shooting but we cannott give any assurance that it may stop the shooting completely because we cannot predict what the people will do in the next moment .My suggestions is we can ban the guns to stop the mass shooting this is only my opinion

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
{click}
If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?
Thomas Jefferson owned 600 humans and would not allow a black person to own a firearm.
>>
PS: Thanks for proving you don't even know the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
"The constitutional right to bear arms is intended to guaranty to the people, in support of just government, such right, and to afford the citizen means for defense of self and property. While this secures to him a right of which he cannot be deprived, it enjoins a duty in execution of which that right is to be exercised. If he employs those arms which he ought to wield for the safety and protection of his country, his person, and his property, to the annoyance and terror and danger of its citizens, his acts find no vindication in the bill of rights. That guaranty was never intended as a warrant for vicious persons to carry weapons with which to terrorize others. Going armed with unusual and dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, is an offense at common law. A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose, for business or amusement, but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon to terrify and alarm a peaceful people."--Chief Justice William T. Spear, Supreme Court of Ohio, State v. Hogan, 63 Ohio 202, 58 N.E. 572, 52 L.R.A. 863, 81 Am. St. 626 (1900).

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

smithdennis wrote:
The background check up may stop the shooting but we cannott give any assurance that it may stop the shooting completely because we cannot predict what the people will do in the next moment .My suggestions is we can ban the guns to stop the mass shooting this is only my opinion
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."--Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."--Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).

"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."--Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court.[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

"Constitutional rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."--Watson v. Memphis, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921),

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."--16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

"The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields."--DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.

"Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority."--Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13.

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."---State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."--Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."--Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946.

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."-- Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516

"Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier."-- Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. at 156, 3 Heisk. at 182.(1871).

"... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."--WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

gun advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
So when are you going to write your senator and request they introduce a bill requiring criminals to obey the law?
Criminals like you that sell weapons to felons?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right
You don't have a constitutional right to sell firearms to felons.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

GunShow1 wrote:
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."--Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).
You don't have a constitutional right to sell firearms to felons.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a hike, you misrepresenting treasonous troll:
You haven't lifted a finger to serve this country.

The closest you have come is servicing lonely Marines outside the base.

Wipe your chin, GayDavy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

GunShow1 wrote:
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up...
You don't have a constitutional right to sell firearms to felons.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape....."-- 1 Thess. 5:3.
Matthew 10:32-33

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

++

Gee, quote mining, fun fun fun~

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
Thanks for your constant reminders that you don't even know the second amendment, Vince!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of186
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••