Comments by "" (@JohnDoe-ew3xt) on "CBN News"
channel.
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dialechim4368 1- "a thorough mental health screening should be done before the customer receives the gun. The same as a background check."
ok one, you didn't really address what happens to the current hipaa laws
secondly, no, no, no, no, no, no on a SUBJECTIVE screening by some liberal anti-gunner to exercise my constitutional rights!!
are you nuts?
a subjective opinion as to who can and cannot own firearms??
you fascists actual frighten me...
and no, it is not the same as a background check! educated much? background check - are you a convicted felon? yes or no? that's a matter of FACT!
do you have the mental health requirement to own a firearm? that's a subjective opinion!! NOT the same thing!
2 - I have a constitutional right to own a firearm. but if I seek mental health care you are going to strip me of that right? again, that's not only nuts, but will OBVIOUSLY deter folks from getting the help they may need.. BRILLIANT!
1
-
@timogul "The gun regulations we have are not as efficient as in the other first world countries. Having "some" laws is pointless if they don't cover the actual use cases that prevent the problems. The gun regulation that would have prevented this crime would be the assault weapons ban of 1994. Ideally, it would go further, to prevent handguns as well, that would save far more lives, but would also be harder to get passed. The point is, if there were less guns on the streets, like in other first world countries, there would also be less murders"
1 - your stats don't add up tim... the number of weapons has steadily been increasing for many decades. int he 90's early 2000 crime rate, including murders declined dramatically.
2 - I have no desire as an american citizen to emulate any other country on the planet.
3 - "assault weapons" ban, that would "ideally" prevent handguns as well... what you are suggesting is to outlaw firearms in america, correct? change the constitution, and have at it...
question tim, do you know where our right to keep and bear arms came from?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timogul "That's why the 2nd amendment makes clear from the very start, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," It was never meant to apply outside that context, and largely became irrelevant once the US shifted toward a more professional army."
this has been debated and argued in the supreme court tim....
yes, the 2A states that a well regulated militia, being necessary of a free state"...
I know you don't agree, but this implies that the free state is the people... MANY understand that the amendment was written so that we could defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.
but anyway, you missed the point of my question entirely, let me rephrase.
who do you think gave ne the right to keep and bear arms? more to the point, do you even understand why the bill of rights was written?? now how... not when, but WHY?
I don't think you understand that tim...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timogul "And the reason the Bill of Rights was added was because they realized at the time that the base Constitution was not sufficient and needed additional elements."
pathetically incorrect...
the bill of rights was written because the colonists baulked at a centralized federal government. these brave men and women had just fought a revolutionary war to be free men and women! not ruled subjects!
and so when the colonists baulked at joining the federal government, the feds added the bill of rights to the constitution.
the bill of rights are promised limitations on the federal government! not rights granted to the people...
the colonists believed they had inalienable rights that the government could not take..
here is the legal definition of inalienable rights:
Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life. To explore this concept, consider the following inalienable rights definition.
Noun
1- Rights that are not alienable
2- Rights that are not transferable or capable of being taken away or nullified
what you're suggesting is not "passing a law", but "fundamentally transforming" our country, correct?
and you are going to blame others for the ensuing violence when you try to fundamentally transform our country, to make yourself feel better??
liberalism is a mental disorder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1