Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Quote:You want proof that they're coming for our guns, yet, some of us want proof that they're not.
So you want to prove a negative?
Do you have any evidence that anyone is taking on the IMPOSSIBLE task of taking all the guns in America?
We have mass shootings regularly and pretty much anyone can still get an assault rifle legally in under 30 minutes. I'm not seeing this imminent police state dystopia you allude to.
High school kids are able to get their hands on guns on the street for almost nothing (likely because they have already been used in crimes). The big brother government is gonna get those too?
What about ammosexuals who have this shared delusion and have made thousands of untraceable ghost guns? The government is gonna come after those too (even though they have no record of their existence)?
Wayne LaPierre has got you snowed.
Quote:That's a lie
Ok, Joe Wilson.
Go ask Sharon Engle about it.
Quote:LOL, nobody is coming for anyones guns... Show me proof that they are. What gun restrictions have occured in 8 years of Obama's administration?
You people need to calm down. And by the way, the 2nd Amendment option is not a political option. It's all out war. Anyone that uses the term knows what they are saying. Using the 2nd Amendment, or getting the 2nd Amendment people to stop something is to say that an assassination or a civil war needs to happen.
Dozens of state laws and Executive Orders have been issued in the past 8 years. Obama has directed health care professionals to violate HIPPA laws by submitting confidential medical information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. In CT, anyone ACCUSED of domestic abuse has to turn in all guns and ammo within 24 hours. No due process. California law AB1014 will allow the police to seize private, legally-owned weapons for up to three weeks without charges or allowing the citizen to contest the seizure. No due process. Somebody just has to say they think you are a danger.
Obama has directed the VA to identify veterans with "reduced mental capacities". Does someone else balance your checkbook? Say goodbye to your 2nd Amendment rights. Do you have a 40 year old pot possession charge? You're getting a knock on your door and guns confiscated even though the possession law is no longer even on the books. Several states have issued laws banning the sale or possession of 10+ round magazines, creating millions of brand new "felons".
In many states you can't let your spouse use even a single shot .22 unless you officially transfer it with a full federal background check. Then after she shoots that one shot she would need another official transfer and background check before handing it back to you.
These are just a handful off the top of my head. Shall not be infringed? More like shall constantly find new ways to infringe. Creeping incrementalism is the master plan.
But all the millions of guns in private hands are a strong deterrent. There won't be any all-out war, unless criminal elements of the government start one. At that point, guns won't even matter. Mr. Solzhenitsyn knows they could have countered Stalin's tyranny with axes, hammers and fireplace pokers if only they were willing to use them. Read about the Warsaw ghetto and how the resistance of a few hundred Jewish prisoners with crude weapons threw a monkey wrench into Hitler's war machine.
Jeezus.. I know honey attracts flies, but so does rotten garbage.. And Hillary's panties must reeeeeeek..
Quote:Ok, Joe Wilson.
Go ask Sharon Engle about it.
This wasn't some third party discussion on the constitutionality of restrictions to some grazing field or retention pond that was suddenly injected with a "SECOND AMMENDMENT OPTION" as a means of resisting the state.
This was a conversation about, you guessed it, THE SECOND AMMENDMENT. So making reference to the amendment itself and its supporters isn't some invocation of insurrection, no matter how much you want it to be.
Also, your memory is a little lax. The left ascribes to the idea of the constitution as a living document. Ergo, it doesn't really matter what the dead white guy slave owners wrote 250 years ago, its about how I as an individual jurist choose to identify today. Case and point, the establishment clause of the first amendment is referring to a specific legal/religious term of the 18th century. There were ESTABLISHED state religions in lots of countries that you were forced to be a part of. The clause means that there would not be an official church of Rhode Island or Church of the united states. Using that language to justify barring a valedictorian from leading a 5 minute prayer, or taking the words UNDER GOD out of the pledge of allegiance is a bastardization of both originalism and our nations traditions. the 14th amendment was passed to enfranchise slaves. The reconstruction congress never imagined the concept of Gay marriage let alone thought they were passing anything to do with it. The concept of Jus Soli had three basic exceptions when it was adopted in the 14th amendment as an expression of English common law. Those have been abandoned in favor of illegal aliens playing red rover red rover with border patrol agents with their pregnant wives.
The idea that the left can't or won't corrupt certain institutions because of silly things like constitutional amendments is just silly. Case and point, the Secretary has already signaled that she wants to overturn the heller Decision. That means that she wants to limit the scope of the inherent right to bear arms and inordinately increase the ability of the state to introduce a slew of new regulations, taxes, fees, and restrictions. You may not see a march to everyone's home but you could definitely see court challenges to stand your ground, open carry, conceal carry, the passage of new taxes (she's already proposed a 25% gun tax I believe,) or more importantly, extending civil liability to gun manufacturers and effectively ending the business model.
She's already talked about an Australian still buy/back confiscation as a model for the country.
Paying attention, its what's for dinner.
Quote:We are a few decades overdue for a revolution and none of these 2nd amendment obsessors are using arms to combat tyranny. As lazy as we have become as a nation, Jefferson's words fall on deaf and incapable ears. The Tree of Liberty is dying of thirst.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
Maybe we are overdue. I'm not condoning revolution, but the second amendment was intended to keep the government in check. It wasn't about muskets and such.
Quote:Didn't realize they had AR-15's during the Jefferson era. Anyway, I think there is a happy medium. I'm quite ok with people owning certain rifles and handguns but don't think anyone other than law enforcement and authorized shooting gallaries should own assault rifles.
AR-15 rifles are the bogeyman of 2016. They are not technically assault weapons, but libs love to mischaracterize them as such. They are no more dangerous than a Glock 17 or like semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine. I have 30 round mags I use at the range regularly at the range when shooting my Glock. It could do as much, if not more damage than the bogeyman you've chosen in the wrong hands.
Quote:The NRA has been selling that line of bull the entire Obama presidency. Sandy Hook was the litmus test. So far, zero guns taken. Zero laws passed to prevent people on terrorist watch lists or who have been diagnosed with mental disorders from getting AR-15s in under an hour. But the sky is falling. They're coming for our guns!!! (As record profits to the gun industry roll in.) "You won't be able to stop it." Please. There are more known guns, forgotten guns and ghost guns in America than any ten governments could ever try to reclaim. It will be a sad day when you realize how stupid you are for buying into this absurd theory.
No background check was going to stop Sandy Hook. The checks in place should weed out those who shouldn't be permitted to buy any firearm. Still, those checks wouldn't have prevented that shooting.
Military weapons and fully automatic guns are already banned in the US. Just because a gun looks like a military weapon doesn't make it one.
just because the gop had constantly been reducing a woman's right to get an abortion through the constant legislation of states doesn't mean Obama is gonna take your guns, jj...
Also, buying back weapons so that there are less floating around is a good idea. Regulating guns and who has them is a far cry from banning guns. You're making huge leaps to get to a defensible position.
Thinking the sky is falling. It's what the gop makes conservatives think.
Quote:"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
Maybe we are overdue. I'm not condoning revolution, but the second amendment was intended to keep the government in check. It wasn't about muskets and such.
No background check was going to stop Sandy Hook. The checks in place should weed out those who shouldn't be permitted to buy any firearm. Still, those checks wouldn't have prevented that shooting.
Military weapons and fully automatic guns are already banned in the US. Just because a gun looks like a military weapon doesn't make it one.
The 2nd amendment is there to keep government in check, yet the majority of the ammosexuals in America are pseudo tough guy pussycats. Every one of those "open carry" faketriots ran and hid when those cops were ambushed in Dallas. I thought the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun? There will be no revolution. The government can and will do what it pleases, because the majority of these 2nd Amendment gun nuts are minimally trained cowards who feel macho with a gun in their hands (so long as nobody is shooting back.)
While bad guys will get their hands on guns regardless, I still feel we make it way too easy for people on terrorist watch lists or who are diagnosed with mental disorders to get guns. To say doing something to close those loopholes wouldn't decrease the number of attacks is not logical to me. It won't solve the issue, but I cannot see how there would not be a decrease in incidents by implementing the most basic screening and restriction policies. Doing something is better than doing nothing.
Calling an AR-15 a non-military weapon (I get the MSR classification) does not prevent it from firing 45 rounds per minute. What are you hunting that requires that type of performance if it isn't humans?
Lol, kotite with some bold statements!
Quote:The 2nd amendment is there to keep government in check, yet the majority of the ammosexuals in America are pseudo tough guy pussycats. Every one of those "open carry" faketriots ran and hid when those cops were ambushed in Dallas. I thought the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun? There will be no revolution. The government can and will do what it pleases, because the majority of these 2nd Amendment gun nuts are minimally trained cowards who feel macho with a gun in their hands (so long as nobody is shooting back.)
While bad guys will get their hands on guns regardless, I still feel we make it way too easy for people on terrorist watch lists or who are diagnosed with mental disorders to get guns. To say doing something to close those loopholes wouldn't decrease the number of attacks is not logical to me. It won't solve the issue, but I cannot see how there would not be a decrease in incidents by implementing the most basic screening and restriction policies. Doing something is better than doing nothing.
Calling an AR-15 a non-military weapon (I get the MSR classification) does not prevent it from firing 45 rounds per minute. What are you hunting that requires that type of performance if it isn't humans?
What open carry members were in Dallas during that BLM rally? I'm fairly certain that would have been given hyper coverage by the salivating media looking for a possible right-wing angle to exploit. The only open carry guy I saw was a gentleman who was mistaken for one of the shooters in the media who turned himself in to show that he wasn't one of the shooters. Using Dallas as an example is weak at best.
The government is certainly going to try to do what it wants without regard for the constitution, but there comes a point when it oversteps it's role one time too many, and the people push back. We've been fortunate over the course of the past 240 years that the push back has come at the ballot box, and we've only seen one period of civil unrest that resulted in war being fought. To say it won't happen is naive because it very well could happen again, especially if the government continues to expand their power and intrusion into our lives beyond what is prescribed in the Constitution. It's clear you're perfectly fine to bend over and accept whatever daddy government tells you to do. Not everyone is so compliant, or willing to give up their liberties for the sake of a more bloated centralized government.
You think it's far too easy to get guns, and that more regulation is required. What regulations are missing right now? Be specific about exactly what isn't being done currently whether it involves mental health, criminal history, or anything else for that matter. Don't just use the nebulous "Terror Watch List" or "Mental Health Checks" nonsense. Tell me what the precise current laws are on these "loopholes", and not just the media spoon-fed politically correct garbage you're spewing here.
A Glock can fire 45 rounds in a minute. Should we ban them too? Should we just ban everything but muskets so that you're happy?
The farmers in Concord, MA were not soldiers, they used arms for putting food on the table. They had no military training, but could reliably hit a target.
How many people in America own scoped deer rifles? Here's the top 5 states and the number of annual deer licenses issued: Pennsylvania 1,299,372. Michigan 1,005,000. Wisconsin 894,543. New York 812,446. Texas 645,000. These .270, .308, 30.06 and 30.30 rifles are much more powerful than the .223 AR-15 and can shoot longer distances accurately.
The average CCW holder gets more firearms training than the average police officer, often much more. They are also the most law-abiding demographic in America. Convictions of felonies and misdemeanors for the general population is 3813 per 100,000. For police officers that number is 103 per 100,000. For concealed permit holders in Florida and Texas, the number is 17 per 100,000.
To fbt - what about the gun show loophole?
And I think the assault weapon ban should be reinstated along with large round clips.
I also think that if you buy a gun you should have it registered and be responsible for it if it's used in a crime.
Also, there should be an Adam lanza rule that if weapons at to be in a house with a mentally challenged person additional checks should be performed and additional obligations should be placed upon that household.
What's wrong with adding a regulations and rules to gun ownership? The supreme court has confirmed that adding regulations to the 2nd is not unconstitutional
Quote:Regulating guns and who has them is a far cry from banning guns.
That's kind of a scary thing to see you say, actually.
Quote:What open carry members were in Dallas during that BLM rally? I'm fairly certain that would have been given hyper coverage by the salivating media looking for a possible right-wing angle to exploit. The only open carry guy I saw was a gentleman who was mistaken for one of the shooters in the media who turned himself in to show that he wasn't one of the shooters. Using Dallas as an example is weak
According to the Dallas PD there were about 20 "open carry" pussycats, some in body armor, who were good guys with guns who didn't take out the bad guys with guns they clearly outnumbered.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20160709-open-carry-creates-confusion-during-dallas-police-ambush-but-supporters-say-law-works.ece'>http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20160709-open-carry-creates-confusion-during-dallas-police-ambush-but-supporters-say-law-works.ece</a>
The 2nd Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed unless you want to buy from or sell to another citizen."
The 2nd Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed but you definitely have to register it."
The 2nd Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed but if you buy one you are responsible for everyone who ever owns it."
The 2nd Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed unless somebody in your family has one of this ever-expanding list of mental conditions."
The 2nd Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed unless the Supreme Court decides to add a bunch of new infringements."
Quote:The government is certainly going to try to do what it wants without regard for the constitution, but there comes a point when it oversteps it's role one time too many, and the people push back. We've been fortunate over the course of the past 240 years that the push back has come at the ballot box, and we've only seen one period of civil unrest that resulted in war being fought. To say it won't happen is naive because it very well could happen again, especially if the government continues to expand their power and intrusion into our lives beyond what is prescribed in the Constitution. It's clear you're perfectly fine to bend over and accept whatever daddy government tells you to do. Not everyone is so compliant, or willing to give up their liberties for the sake of a more bloated centralized government.
You think it's far too easy to get guns, and that more regulation is required. What regulations are missing right now? Be specific about exactly what isn't being done currently whether it involves mental health, criminal history, or anything else for that matter. Don't just use the nebulous "Terror Watch List" or "Mental Health Checks" nonsense. Tell me what the precise current laws are on these "loopholes", and not just the media spoon-fed politically correct garbage you're spewing here.
A Glock can fire 45 rounds in a minute. Should we ban them too? Should we just ban everything but muskets so that you're happy?
The government passed the most unconstitutional law of all time with The Patriot Act. They will take whatever perceived freedoms they can. The reason it passed is because dumb Americans were made fearful and allowed it to happen. Which is something I cannot forget, especially when a presidential candidate is running a campaign of fear.
The Orlando gunman was known to be on a watch list and was still able to get an assault rifle almost immediately. Actions are being taken to make sure felons are able to get guns. People who have been Baker Act-ed or have been diagnosed as suicidal, homicidal or suffering from delusions like that guy who shot up the abortion clinic.. what law prevents them from having guns? Ask Wayne LaPierre who shouldn't have guns and I am not sure what response you'd get. (Talk about suffering from mental disorders, have you read his Twitter feed?) The absurd notion the government would be able to take away guns (I defy you to present any plan which could successfully accomplish this task) should not eliminate common sense laws which say not everyone should be able to get their hands on guns so easily. I know enough sane people who are patriotic gun owners I do not trust to not discharge their weapons accidentally. I shouldn't have to worry about a guy fresh from a terrorist training camp in Yemen being able to get an assault rifle on his lunch break.
Quote:The 2nd Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed unless the Supreme Court decides to add a bunch of new infringements."
Neither did the 18th Amendment.
Quote:The government passed the most unconstitutional law of all time with The Patriot Act. They will take whatever perceived fredoms they can. The reason it passed is because dumb Americans were made fearful and allowed it to happen. Which is something I cannot forget, especially when a presidential candidate is running a campaign of fear.
The Orlando gunman was known to be on a watch list and was still able to get an assault rifle almost immediately. Actions are being taken to make sure felons are able to get guns. People who have been Baker Act-ed or have been diagnosed as suicidal, homicidal or suffering from delusions like that guy who shot up the abortion clinic.. what law prevents them from having guns? Ask Wayne LaPierre who shouldn't have guns and I am not sure what response you'd get. (Talk about suffering from mental disorders, have you read his Twitter feed?) The absurd notion the government would be able to take away guns (I defy you to present any plan which could successfully accomplish this task) should not eliminate common sense laws which say not everyone should be able to get their hands on guns so easily. I know enough sane people who are patriotic gun owners I do not trust to not discharge their weapons accidentally. I shouldn't have to worry about a guy fresh from a terrorist training camp in Yemen being able to get an assault rifle on his lunch break.
You shouldn't have to worry about him being in our country. You also should be able to defend yourself from him no matter what some government agency may or may not think about your normalcy.
Quote:It's the only way any Republican wins anymore. Generate fear.
Scary Muslims want to kill us. They do.
Scary liberals want to take our guns. Again, they do.
Scary foreigners want to take your jobs. They have been, both in coming here and the jobs going there.
Scary homosexuals want destroy your family. They've certainly destroyed some people's right to earn a living or live without death threats.
It's all they got for a platform. Fear, fear, and more fear. Is it really just fear? What you are saying is it's unfounded fear, but a look at current events shows otherwise.
Quote:To fbt - what about the gun show loophole?
What loophole are you talking about, the lawful buying and selling of firearms or the [BLEEP] bogeyman the lefty media hypes all the time?
And I think the assault weapon ban should be reinstated along with large round clips. Not as long as the military and LEOs have them.
I also think that if you buy a gun you should have it registered and be responsible for it if it's used in a crime. No, my right to privately own a firearm is the same as a woman's right to kill her unborn child.
Also, there should be an Adam lanza rule that if weapons at to be in a house with a mentally challenged person additional checks should be performed and additional obligations should be placed upon that household. No, see last point.
What's wrong with adding a regulations and rules to gun ownership? The supreme court has confirmed that adding regulations to the 2nd is not unconstitutional Because the regulator is the entity the Amendment protects against, in doing so you eliminate it's ability to function. You might as well put the fox inside the hen house yourself.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10