And they would probable be wrong. The militia clause has no bearing at all on the rest of the statement. Again, people that can't read are showing their ignorance. It could have said "because two plus two equals five, the right..." And would have the same ultimate prohibition against infringement. At best, the militia clause only explains the purpose, but in no way does it give a limitation on what cannot be infringed.

Furthermore, just because a previous group of nine men in black robes couldn't read and were then followed by another similarly incompetent group, it doesn't magically make the combination and continuation of their incompetence magically sound...

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 7:30 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2013 7:23:23 PM

Quote :

"Now read down to number 2, and remember that every time you post "shall not be infringed""

i realize that reasonable restrictions are necessary

perhaps if we got rid of some of the asinine gun laws currently on the books, then we'd be more willing to believe that the antis "don't want to take our guns".

5/13/2013 8:00:12 PM

perhaps if we got a few more then we could believe that the NRA lobbyists don't want to put a gun in the hands of every man, woman, child, criminal, and fetus

5/13/2013 9:17:47 PM

Hey, it's their right, but I hope they go out of business for it. Square is blocking gun sales using its product.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/technology/square-guns/index.html?source=cnn_bin

5/14/2013 7:01:21 AM

Quote :

"He denied that the move was related to the recent debate over gun control in Washington, calling the timing "completely coincidental." "

lol

5/14/2013 8:10:28 AM

this is nothing new. banks are closing accounts for gun businesses. ebay and paypal have been anti for years.

5/14/2013 8:21:09 AM

Oh the parallels between gun rights debate and the abortion debate (WRT this abortion doctor recently convicted).

One guy aborting children by snapping baby necks in a dumpster? BAN ALL ABORTIONS!

5/14/2013 9:00:23 AM

holy fuck you're attempting to go there

that doctor wasn't performing abortions, he was murdering babies

there is a pretty big difference

and to compare any of that to the gun debate?? man.

5/14/2013 9:12:37 AM

no shit he was performing murder [but it is an "abortion" issue]; I didn't place him in the abortion debate; the anti-and pro-abortion crowd did. But it's still an example of outliers and why we shouldn't fuck over everyone else because of them. Thus, a recent and relevant parallel.

[Edited on May 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM. Reason : /]

5/14/2013 9:14:39 AM

Quote :

"Hey, it's their right, but I hope they go out of business for it. Square is blocking gun sales using its product."

It's a pretty good business decision. Can you imagine what would happen to Square if someone had used it to buy a gun that was used in a shooting spree? The small sliver of business that gun sales could provide would be more than worth it to give up to avoid a potential media frenzy. I don't know why you would care, I figure you would want to use cash so there's no record that the government can use to come bust down your door and take your gun when that inevitably happens.

5/14/2013 9:15:39 AM

Quote :

"But it's still an example of outliers and why we shouldn't fuck over everyone else because of them. Thus, a recent and relevant parallel."

you're right that statistical outliers like school mass shootings are terrible reasons to pass gun laws

but the good ol' fashioned gun violence that happens every day is though

5/14/2013 10:00:09 AM

I would assume various other controlled items are also blocked from being sold using Square. That's not really a meaningful news item.

There's probably a premium provider you can go to of you want to process gun sales with your phone.

5/14/2013 10:01:24 AM

^^my post was mostly in reference to AWBs that people still push for.

5/14/2013 1:34:14 PM

^^^^I don't have enough cash lying around to throw down for a decent gun. It would have to be electronic. I would expect that a lot of vendors offer Square as a means to purchase at gun shows. But, Square wouldn't be liable for any gun sold illegally using its method of purchase. It would be the vendor's/owner's liability.

To even think that I could buy a gun completely off the books without my gov't knowing about it is both naive and very illegal.

5/14/2013 3:27:16 PM

Quote :

"I don't have enough cash lying around to throw down for a decent gun."

That sounds like a personal problem.

5/14/2013 3:33:34 PM

I just don't carry cash.

5/14/2013 3:34:25 PM

Well it's something you'll probably need to do if you want to buy a firearm from an individual.

5/14/2013 3:36:15 PM

Yeah, that square argument is pretty silly

5/14/2013 4:01:03 PM

Quote :

"To even think that I could buy a gun completely off the books without my gov't knowing about it is both naive and very illegal."

not that difficult. not illegal.

5/14/2013 4:08:54 PM

How could I legally buy a gun without a background check, and not have my ccp?

5/14/2013 4:12:55 PM

long gun not at a FFL

[Edited on May 14, 2013 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2013 4:15:51 PM

^^buy it privately

5/14/2013 5:02:49 PM

also there is no federal law for a background check for handguns either, that's a state law and most states do not have that law

5/14/2013 5:48:13 PM

yeah, because the other states had enough sense to repeal their Jim Crow laws designed to keep black folks from owning handguns

5/14/2013 5:52:38 PM

5/14/2013 6:19:30 PM

^ does the 'rolly eyes' signify that you are disputing the history of the purchase permit requirement in NC?

5/14/2013 7:23:27 PM

because that's a silly reason to oppose it today

5/14/2013 7:34:01 PM

don't worry about that law that was written simply to deny a certain group of folks their rights. the state would never use such a law to deny someone their rights today.

[Edited on May 14, 2013 at 7:42 PM. Reason : you put a lot of trust in county sheriffs]

5/14/2013 7:38:09 PM

i don't know where i ever endorsed NC's system as a perfect model, we can have background checks for all private purchases without needing to go through every sheriff

5/14/2013 7:55:24 PM

so, requiring a sheriff's approval is a valid reason for opposing NC's handgun purchase permit system?

like i've said many times, i have no problem with background checks as long as they're extremely easy to obtain and de facto registration is stripped from the process

5/14/2013 8:07:43 PM

i have no idea, you're the one saying its being used to discriminate against black people, i'm not personally aware of evidence of that in this state

[Edited on May 14, 2013 at 11:11 PM. Reason : i'm not saying its not, just that i'm not aware of it]

5/14/2013 11:06:00 PM

NC's handgun purchase permit requirement is a remnant of the Jim Crow era. the idea was the sheriff could just deny permits for black folks. if the law was written specifically to prevent certain groups from exercising a right, then i don't think it's much of a stretch to say it could be used that way again. i can definitely see hispanics, middle eastern folks, or any other group of brown people that north carolinians love to hate getting fucked by the requirement.

5/15/2013 7:35:45 AM

so it is currently being used in that way?

5/15/2013 8:48:25 AM

The Durham firearms registry is a blue law from the 30's. So we should probably do away with that one too.

5/15/2013 8:54:56 AM

so if we removed them, and replaced them with a law that had the same effect but was written today for a different purpose, we can skip this argument then, right? because it's a silly argument unless it is still being used to discriminate.

5/15/2013 8:59:34 AM

we're one crazy-ass sheriff away from it. some sheriffs (the ones who think only LEOs should have weapons) already take longer than legally allowed to issue or deny concealed handgun permits, but nothing gets done about them.

5/15/2013 9:14:04 AM

so just another slippery slope argument, a slope pointed in the opposite direction of how things are actually sliding

5/15/2013 9:20:07 AM

why do you want them to slide the other way when crime rates continue to fall?

it's like you're saying "hey, things are going your way, so you should stop caring."

[Edited on May 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM. Reason : asd]

5/15/2013 9:26:58 AM

well, one, even with drop from the peak, the numbers are still way to high. and, two, i don't understand why you always conflate all crimes and gun crimes.

but more importantly, because background checks make sense

5/15/2013 9:33:07 AM

Quote :

"like i've said many times, i have no problem with background checks as long as they're extremely easy to obtain and de facto registration is stripped from the process"

but you support registration, so i see why you refuse to actually recognize that i don't have a problem with background checks

5/15/2013 9:39:48 AM

(i actually don't support registration it as it has been proposed, for the same reason the ACLU was against it. There were no guidelines or requirements about how that data is managed or when its destroyed. )

5/15/2013 9:53:20 AM

Quote :

"well, one, even with drop from the peak, the numbers are still way to high"

What would you consider to be acceptable?

5/15/2013 10:49:39 PM

something more comparable to the rest of the developed world

5/16/2013 8:30:02 AM

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/16/d-c-considers-mandatory-250k-insurance-policy-for-gun-buyers/

People are losing their minds. This is just as bad as some of the shit the GA in NC is putting together.

5/16/2013 9:27:27 AM

It doesn't seem like that outlandish of an idea. If you operate a car you have to carry insurance to cover the damage you can do with it, it seems reasonable that the same requirement could be put on gun owners.

5/16/2013 10:45:36 AM

its only a problem because some people wouldn't be able to acquire that insurance, if there was a way to ensure that it was available to anyone who needed it then it wouldn't be a bad idea

5/16/2013 10:47:40 AM

Do we have that same problem with car insurance? I imagine there are government-subsidized insurance programs, but I don't care to research it.

5/16/2013 11:00:42 AM

except you don't have an individual, constitutionally protected right to drive an automobile. so because of that it doesn't really matter constitutionally if automotive insurance costs are prohibitive, but for gun insurance that could be a constitutional issue.

(also automotive insurance rates are set by the state)

5/16/2013 11:10:52 AM

Quote :

"except you don't have an individual, constitutionally protected right to drive an automobile. so because of that it doesn't really matter constitutionally if automotive insurance costs are prohibitive, but for gun insurance that could be a constitutional issue."

The government doesn't have an obligation to make sure the guns themselves are affordable, so I don't see why they would have any different obligations around insuring them.

5/16/2013 12:14:17 PM

that's true i guess

the next step to defend it then would be to show how the $250k requirement is not arbitrary or capricious, so show what it is based on

5/16/2013 12:20:05 PM