Texas law professor calls for repeal ...

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

There are 12127 comments on the BizPacReview.com story from Nov 17, 2013, titled Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment. In it, BizPacReview.com reports that:

A professor at the Texas A&M University School of Law claims that the Second Amendment should be shelved and replaced with something else.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at BizPacReview.com.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7592 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Because those cities aren't surrounded by an impenetrable shield. Reason dictates that no regulation will be effective that can be avoided simply by crossing the city line where the regulations are not in effect.
This isn't complicated. I don't understand why you don't get it.
"Reason dictates that no regulation will be effective that can be avoided simply by crossing the city line where the regulations are not in effect."
What does that mean then Danny, if not that the regulation need extend beyond the line in order to be "effective"?
That's what it means - we need consistent federal gun safety legislation in order to avoid a patchwork of ineffective measures.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7593 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that it has problems Danny.
>YOU< changed it to "reject".
You are wrong again strawman.
Well then let me rephrase...

Why am I not surprised that you only partially accept logic?
I'll bet you were totally into that whole "unskewed polls" thing in 2012, weren't you?

Better?

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7594 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
PROBLEM:
ONLY "legal" businesses licensed to sell will be a "regulated point of purchase". How many criminals buy at those "points" Danny?
It IS, after all, the criminals that you wish to harness. Right Dan?
Who says only licensed businesses can be regulated?

Some people buy cars from dealerships. Some buy from private parties. But we regulate each and every point of purchase.

If we can do it for cars, we can do it for guns.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7595 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said "Impossible to enforce at ALL "points of purchase".
<smile>
Not at all. We regulate ALL points of purchase for cars, don't we? There's no reason we can't do the same thing for guns.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7596 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
So in order to stop the "evading" there is ONLY one choice son. Make the law on the other side the same.
I can keep pointing it out but I can not make you grasp it's truth.
Right. That's what I said - consistent, national regulation.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7597 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Because those cities aren't surrounded by an impenetrable shield. Reason dictates that no regulation will be effective that can be avoided simply by crossing the city line where the regulations are not in effect.
This isn't complicated. I don't understand why you don't get it.
<quoted text>
"Reason dictates that no regulation will be effective that can be avoided simply by crossing the city line where the regulations are not in effect."
I thought you wished the "regulations" to be "effective".
How do you do that with your own conundrum in play?
You continue to misunderstand. I have said repeatedly that we need consistent, national legislation in order for it to be effective.

I don't understand why you aren't getting this. It's really not complicated at all.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7598 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
You backpedal edited ^there^ Danny.
NO WHERE does the word "into" exist in the post of yours to which I responded.
<smile>
Seriously?

I said "to" once and "into" the next time. Both statements mean the same thing. It's bizarre that confused you.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7599 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
hateful
- adj
bitter, malicious, nasty, obnoxious, spiteful, vicious
There is no way any honest person can claim that your posts that I copied here and in your email do not fit all of those definitions.
Danny, show me where you said "into".
to

into

What's the difference?

Whenever you have to resort to arguing about what the definition of "to" is, you've clearly surrendered the debate on substance.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7600 Apr 3, 2014
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>ROTFLMAO!!!!! Painfully???? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Dear God, man! You are so incredibly conceited and narcissistic that it's almost unbelievable! You attack others then act like the injured party when you meet resistance. Try again..........
I don't call you names, I use accurate descriptors.
BTW, that last sentence should be familiar..........it's yours from a post addressed to me.
So no attempt to debate the actual issue?

I didn't think so.

LOL!

Since: Oct 09

.

#7601 Apr 3, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. We regulate ALL points of purchase for cars, don't we? There's no reason we can't do the same thing for guns.
Exactly where in the Bill of rights does it say car ownership "shall not be infringed"?



When you here this from loud speakers in America before sunset...it's too dammed late to worry about it.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7602 Apr 3, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
Dan the Man said "There is no evidence that home invasions are on the rise. Robbery, burglary, and violent crime are all falling in this nation."
Now lets look at this as
A. a mistake?
B. a lie.
C. an uninformed opinion.
Here is my evidence to support my claim:
Home invasions are on the rise!
http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/news/arti ...
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/tpd-home -...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/sep/08/rece ...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
Umm, we've been through this.

And my response remains the same:
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Anecdotal evidence from several communities does not prove the problem is increasing nationally. If you make decisions based on what's reported in the popular press, you'd never go outside, take any medication, or let your kids out in public. And you'd believe that the group most targeted for abductions are young, attractive, white girls.

Since: Oct 09

.

#7603 Apr 3, 2014
[hear]

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7604 Apr 3, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the bold, definitive statement there, Dan
How would you go about proving that statement, Dan?
Back alley sales are no doubt made in every major city in this nation.
A fair point. Obviously people purchase firearms illegally in Chicago.

But my point was that all that's necessary is for residents to cross the city line and legally purchase whatever they want, thus making the purchase restrictions within Chicago ineffective.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7605 Apr 3, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly where in the Bill of rights does it say car ownership "shall not be infringed"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =EAvlimEYEpQXX
When you here this from loud speakers in America before sunset...it's too dammed late to worry about it.
Where does it say in the Bill of Rights that all our rights are unlimited?

Anti-Muslim fear-mongering is ridiculous and juvenile. You can't have seriously bought into that.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7606 Apr 3, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly where in the Bill of rights does it say car ownership "shall not be infringed"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =EAvlimEYEpQXX
When you here this from loud speakers in America before sunset...it's too dammed late to worry about it.
But it is funny that you'd say you want the Bill of Rights to be unlimited, then in the same post imply that the 1st Amendment somehow shouldn't apply to Muslims. See the inconsistency there?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#7607 Apr 3, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Accurate?
When you say that the House is referred to as "Congress" and that both houses as a pair is referred to as "Congress" and you get confused?
Yes...
Read it again strawman.
No where did I "refer" in such manner.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#7608 Apr 3, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what it means - we need consistent federal gun safety legislation in order to avoid a patchwork of ineffective measures.
rse that is what it means and what you meant when you wrote it.
You denied it yesterday Dan.
Caught you in your own lie son.
<smile>

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7609 Apr 3, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>rse that is what it means and what you meant when you wrote it.
You denied it yesterday Dan.
Caught you in your own lie son.
<smile>
I have not idea what you're trying to say.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#7610 Apr 3, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says only licensed businesses can be regulated?
Some people buy cars from dealerships. Some buy from private parties. But we regulate each and every point of purchase.
If we can do it for cars, we can do it for guns.
" But we regulate each and every point of purchase."
Horseshit Danny.

MANY a car sale go unchecked and un-"regulated".
The proof is real simple kid. There are vehicles of all kinds, sizes, shapes, and denomination setting all over the place and getting traded and sold back and forth and not one single VIN is checked by any authority UNTIL such time as that vehicle is to be operated on a public roadway.

I can look out the window right now and see several vehicles that have been sold at least three times and not once has the "point of sale" been "regulated". They are not licensed and there will be NO "regulation" until they are.

Try again Danny Boy.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#7611 Apr 3, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then let me rephrase...
Why am I not surprised that you only partially accept logic?
I'll bet you were totally into that whole "unskewed polls" thing in 2012, weren't you?
Better?
LOL!
How often do you make losing bets?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump, top Democrats reach deal on DACA immigrants 4 min bblight 80
News Jimmy Kimmel transforms debate, and shows comed... 7 min spud 82
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 10 min Chilli J 31,144
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 10 min bblight 4,081
News Trump, the 'America First' president, goes to t... 16 min bblight 339
News GOP health bill all but dead; McCain again deal... 16 min spud 32
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 30 min Reader 289,188
More from around the web