Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jttIII t1_iuo0nrm wrote

Explain your 2A stance in more elaborate detail please.

Who in addition to those who are already legally barred from owning firearms would you seek to restrict or impede access to?

Also how do you intend on limiting the constitutional right that is Open carry?

Not loaded questions (pun absolutely intended) but sincere questions that you'll have to address clearly if you want to be taken seriously at all in Missouri.

0

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuo4meu wrote

If I were to run with that issue in my platform (which I’ve been told is a bad bet) I would increase red flag laws to stop those like the St. Louis shooter from being able to get their hands on guns. I also would close the unregistered sale loophole that lets buyers go background check free.

As for limiting open carry, I would leave it up to businesses to decide if someone can open carry in their establishment.

1

jttIII t1_iuo7avi wrote

Okay... so really nothing in regards to addressing open carry... just reminding business owners of their already existing rights to restrict open carry on their private property.

In regards to "Increasing red flag laws" Specifically when does the government get to come take your 2nd amendment away? by what committee? based on what non already existing crietea or crime should one be barred from their 2nd amendment right? Why not also extend that to the first amendment? Some peoples speech is just too dangerous...

Also Orlando in St. Louis he was literally blocked by the FBI during his background check and had to buy that piece of garbage with no hand guard from a private individual.

0

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuofz78 wrote

There are limits on free speech. The Supreme Court has already ruled that. He bought the gun privately and that needs to stop happening. You can lose constitutional rights; most felons cannot vote or carry guns. But I can see you have an issue with updating an amendment written by men who believed people could be property and thought a musket rifle was a powerful weapon.

2

jttIII t1_iuohnvj wrote

Attacking the person and not the argument is not a good look when speaking to potential Constituents...

besides that and going back to the substance of the argument with my question that has not yet been answered is the following... What mechanism specifically, that does not currently exist, (I'm aware felons cannot vote or own firearms legally.) would exist to determine when an individual gets their rights restrained or revoked by committee? what criteria? again why shouldn't that apply to other rights?

AND I actually have no problem with updating Amendments... that's specifically how our government has been set up and we've done it MULTIPLE times... I do have a problem with any elected egomaniac wannabe tyrant trying to circumvent a process designed for, by and of the people just to fit their short term political whims because their position actually ISN'T strong enough to be fulfilled or realized through the intended process.

Also... specifically what is the purpose of the second amendment?

−1

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuoq1lg wrote

I’m sorry but isn’t the right famous for attacking potential voters? As for you being a potential voter, it was clear with your question that you wouldn’t be keen to vote for me.

There is a court to decide what can take away a persons freedoms. If that court decides that someone saying they were so tired of the world and wanted to load up and end things was enough to put a red flag on them and not allow the purchase of firearms then that would be common sense. If they decided that, just like vehicles, you had to report any firearm purchase so be it. I’m not talking about taking guns away from responsible owners. I’m talking about keeping them from people who are struggling with mental issues at the time or have history of disturbing acts.

As for the purpose of 2A, it was originally written to protect the right of self defense and oppression. As other amendments from the Bill of Rights have had amendments to correct them, there is nothing in the constitution that says the right to bear arms cannot be clarified.

2

jttIII t1_iuotsrx wrote

"I’m sorry but isn’t the right famous for attacking potential voters?" what!? I think crazy is as crazy does and doesn't really have a partisan affiliation... But if we really wanna go down that route I'd be more than happy to stack up the damage and loss of life with your January 6th argument against the Chaz/Chop, BLM "mostly peaceful protests" any day of the week to isolate who tends to be more violent on the political spectrum but I digress...

Now in regards to your central argument that there is a hypothetical court that determines who has a valid stand on retaining or having their 2A rights restricted OUTSIDE of committing and being found guilty of an act like a felony or domestic violence that would preclude them from owning a firearm (something we both probably agree is a good thing for at least a period of time) Can you, and this is an honest question, can you fathom any situation or circumstance where this could be abused or bastardised and result in a law abiding citizen being stripped of their ability to defend themselves until a committee of likely unelected bureaucratic officials deem it safe? Could that system be weaponized?

If you agree so, is that just collateral damage you're willing to accept for the greater good?

if not, do you then hold the position that such a court would be somehow foolproof in ensuring NO ONE EVER lost their 2nd amendment rights unjustly?

0

exhusband2bears t1_iup5y19 wrote

> January 6th argument against the Chaz/Chop, BLM "mostly peaceful protests"

This is a tired, old line of bullshit.

> Now in regards to your central argument that there is a hypothetical court that determines who has a valid stand on retaining or having their 2A rights restricted OUTSIDE of committing and being found guilty of an act like a felony or domestic violence that would preclude them from owning a firearm (something we both probably agree is a good thing for at least a period of time) Can you, and this is an honest question, can you fathom any situation or circumstance where this could be abused or bastardised and result in a law abiding citizen being stripped of their ability to defend themselves until a committee of likely unelected bureaucratic officials deem it safe? Could that system be weaponized?

Could you, and this is an honest question, possibly fathom any way to be more pedantic and overly prolix?

> If you agree so, is that just collateral damage you're willing to accept for the greater good?

> If not, do you then hold the position that such a court would be somehow foolproof in ensuring NO ONE EVER lost their 2nd amendment rights unjustly?

Ah yes, the ol' "How long has it been since you last beat your wife, and do you think spousal abuse is wrong?"

Your whole schtick is like a big old grab bag of intellectual dishonesty.

Edit: formatting

1