“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[M14 Shooter]

Tell us:
How will Bobby confiscate weapons from those who refuse to give them up?

Seriously? How does "Bobby confiscate" illegal weapons today?

Characteristically, you avoided the question. I'll ask again:
How will Bobby confiscate weapons from those who refuse to give them up?

No I didn't avoid anything. You just don't understand the basics of how enforcement of illegal possetion works.

And thus, you know you cannot meaningfully address my question without the admission that Bobby will have to kill people who refuse to give up their guns to confiscate them - as previously claimed, and denied by you.

Moron, Bobby would be the President of the United Fucking States, who would advocate for and sign specific laws and executives orders. Thats what he is talking about.

Nothing here changes the fact that if Bobby wants to confiscate 'assault weapons' form people who refuse to give them up, he will have to kill people - exactly as claimed.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[Rigby5]

You said it was impossible or words to that effect. Failure!

Please point to the post where I said impossible, or words to that effect.

You said, "What possible reason would anyone have to do that? It didn't take an amendment to get fully automatic weapons off the street.."
That is not totally accurate.
Fully automatic weapons were cheap and available mail order after WWI, with Thompson machineguns going for less than $30, but almost no one wanted them. The only reason they became a problem was Prohibition, which caused large amounts of unprotected cash and turf wars. The problem was not Thompson machineguns, but that Prohibition of Alcohol was illegal and irrational.
While we then did pass laws to make machineguns more difficult to buy legally, they are still cheap and easy to obtain illegally, and the laws never had anything at all to do with their small number on the street. The reality is they are hard to conceal, so are almost never used in crime.
So your claim that laws succeeded with fully automatic weapons is just wrong.
And even more important is the fact that federal gun laws are also inherently illegal.
While people accepted them due to the bad media coverage of things like the St. Valentines day massacre, the reality is that no federal weapons law has ever been legal, they were never a good idea, and they never improved anything.
So in general your claim was wrong, that more federal laws helped in the past.
That is not accurate that federal laws helped, nor are things better now.
Weapons are supposed to be under state and local jurisdiction only.
It would be like the EU suddenly made strict gun laws in Europe, totally violating the sovereignty of countries like Switzerland that do not have strict gun laws.

4 quick takeaways from your post.
1. Asking for a possible reason is not the same as saying something is impossible. You are either just that dumb, or are tying to misdirect what was said.
2 You think a fully auto M16 is not as widespread in it's use by civilians as an ar15 because it is harder to conceal, even though they are basically the same gun, and indistinguishable from each other at a few feet.
3. You think all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. That's just ridiculous.
4. You're just another raving gun nut who will say anything, no matter how absurd, to defend your gun fetish.

1. Of course asking for a possible reason is not saying something is impossible. But your reading comprehension is awful. I am the one saying it is impossible to get fully automatic weapons off the street or to do just about anything with weapons just by passing more laws. The first thing I pointed out is that what got automatic weapons off the street was the end of Prohibition, and additional laws had NOTHING at all to do with it. Your claim that fully automatic weapons were removed from the street by laws short of a constitutional amendment is entirely and completely wrong. Almost no one ever wanted to have full auto on the streets, and it was only Prohibition that cause fully automatic weapons on the street at all.

2. You are claiming I said an M-16 is not as widespread as an AR-15 because it is harder to conceal, and that is nonsense. Clearly what I said is that almost NO ONE is using AR-15s or M-16s for crimes. They are using almost completely, pistols. That is because criminals usually do not want to need firepower, but instead do need and want concealability. It is foolish to target assault weapons in order to reduce crime, because they essentially are NOT used for crime hardly at all. That is very simple, clear, and easy to understand and anticipate. You should already know that ARs are not relevant to crime. So you really need to not only read better, but do more background research.

3. Of course all federal gun laws are obviously unconstitutional. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to separate jurisdictions by limiting the federal government, so that states would sign onto the new federal Constitution. They would not do it until the Bill of Rights was added, specifically to forbid any federal over step. And the 2nd amendment strictly prohibits any and all federal weapons laws. It means only states and municipalities can legally draft any weapons law. Clearly laws always are intended to infringe. That is the purpose of laws. And clearly the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights then absolutely denies any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.

4. Guns are what ended the European monarchies and allowed democratic republics, like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, etc. If you like and want democratic republics, then you had also better start having a gun fetish. Because they are the only equalizer that allows democratic republics to exist at all.

Prohibition was about alcohol dumb ass. It wasn't about guns.

Of course the Prohibition of Alcohol was about alcohol and not intended to effect guns, but clearly the side effect of alcohol prohibition was to greatly increase the abuse of guns.
No one was machine gunning down large groups of people until the Prohibition of Alcohol caused there to be so much money in it, that it was bound to then happen.
It was the Prohibition of Alcohol that greatly increased the murder rate then, just as the War on Drugs greatly increased the murder rate now.

Federal laws inappropriately attempting to restrict things almost always ends up causing more deaths instead of decreasing problems. Very few things should be legislated at the federal level.

 

[Rigby5]

You can see it in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd. They rage about the mass shooting at hand and their vitriol is at the John Q. Public gun owner. They also have no problem with their liberal elite Hollywood gods putting out content after content of gun violence being glorified.

Big difference between a gun owner and a gun nut. They are not the same.

Not in the eyes of autocratic government that wants the general population to be unable to resist tyranny.
The fact police and military are given firearms is proof they are necessary.
And anyone who believes the government can be trusted with weapons more than the general public, is a traitor to the democratic republic.

Got it. You're another one of those anti-government gun nuts.

Define "gun nut," Nazi?

You. I would point to you as a shining example of a gun nut.

Hardly matters who or what is whatever.
The reality is that centralized federal weapons laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution that explicitly say the federal government is prohibited from enacting any weapons legislation at all.

 

[jc456]

No, they aren't. Some are just more powerful (velocity vs. energy). I've never seen an elephant gun with a 100-round rotary magazine.

Take one average run-of-mill duck gun. Load with OO buckshot (at 9 shot per shell) and three pulls of the trigger will put 27 projectiles in the air. Many have magazines able to hold five which will yield 45 projectiles with five trigger pulls and no reloading. Whereas an AR-15 requires 20 trigger pulls to fire 20rnds with a 20rnd. mag. If both are fired into a packed crowd of people which is more deadly?

The AR. The AR will penetrate up to 3 bodies and probably lodge in the forth. The OO buck won't go much past the first person although it's going to make one hell of a mess.

Maybe but doubtful. The 5.56 round is highly frangible and tends to fly apart or deflect wildly when hits something. A more stable and powerful traditional hunting round like the .30-'06 could be expected to have much greater penetration. My money would be on the 12 Ga. fired at aprox. head level.

You are giving the mass shooter way too much credit. They are usually the bottom of the barrel for skill sets. They like to use the AR because it makes up for their deficiencies. They just come in and start blasting away with no plan or rhyme nor reason. You are thinking about how YOU would do it. They don't do that. And you are expecting them to have some kind of skill and proficiency with their weapon. They have either very little or zero. The AR allows them to go for a high body count fast. Your shotgun idea would be for a seasoned shooter that actually knows what he's doing before he commits suicide.

Jared Lee Loughner used a Glock 19
You have a better chance of being run down by a vehicle than being shot with a rifle.

Man who drove through Woodfield Mall in custody at mental health facility

No gun. vehicle weapon.

 

[Rigby5]

Tell us:
How will Bobby confiscate weapons from those who refuse to give them up?

Seriously? How does "Bobby confiscate" illegal weapons today?

Characteristically, you avoided the question. I'll ask again:
How will Bobby confiscate weapons from those who refuse to give them up?

No I didn't avoid anything. You just don't understand the basics of how enforcement of illegal possetion works.

And thus, you know you cannot meaningfully address my question without the admission that Bobby will have to kill people who refuse to give up their guns to confiscate them - as previously claimed, and denied by you.

Moron, Bobby would be the President of the United Fucking States, who would advocate for and sign specific laws and executives orders. Thats what he is talking about.

He WOULD NOT be someone that enforces and adjudicates specific cases. Our justice system does that and it is bound by laws including those requiring reasonable cause to conduct search and seizure of private property as well as bringing illegal possetion charges in the court of law.

To not understand all that is to be grossly ignorant of how our system works.

Even more important is that attempting to confiscate ARs that were legally purchased, absolutely violates the Constitution.

{...
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
...
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}

Ex post facto is where you try to later make illegal that which was legal when done. So you can not legally retroactively make ARs illegal.
That is strictly forbidden by article 1, section 9, of the constitution.
If the federal government would ever try to do that, then it must be destroyed, as a clear and present danger to the democratic republic as a whole, and everyone individually.

 

[Rigby5]

it's just funny we've gone from WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS to HELL YEA WE'RE GONNA TAKE 'EM!!!

the ironic part is the anti-gun crowd started out thinking the AR15 was fully automatic. the media fed that ignorance 24x7. the anti-gunners eat it up cause they don't want to understand, they just want what they want. but unfortunately the more the anti-gunners learn, the more they just want all guns gone cause they can't define "assault rifle" outside their emotional force field.

when you debate the issue and ask how it's different, their frustration sets in and they just want all semi-automatic guns gone now.

but they're not coming for gun and just want "common sense" when that in fact is the last thing they have cause they refuse to learn, just broaden their definition and demands.

So what did you expect? You have been accusing Democrats for years of coming for your guns when there was no effort whatsoever to do that. Eventually, you get to a point where you realize that if you are going to be accused of it anyway, you might as well consider whether it would be worthwhile. You worked long and hard to convince Beto that it would be worthwhile. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Whatever, does not change the fact what Beto proposes is entirely illegal, and therefore would invalidate the entire federal government.

 

[AntonToo]

Seriously? How does "Bobby confiscate" illegal weapons today?

Characteristically, you avoided the question. I'll ask again:
How will Bobby confiscate weapons from those who refuse to give them up?

No I didn't avoid anything. You just don't understand the basics of how enforcement of illegal possetion works.

And thus, you know you cannot meaningfully address my question without the admission that Bobby will have to kill people who refuse to give up their guns to confiscate them - as previously claimed, and denied by you.

Moron, Bobby would be the President of the United Fucking States, who would advocate for and sign specific laws and executives orders. Thats what he is talking about.

He WOULD NOT be someone that enforces and adjudicates specific cases. Our justice system does that and it is bound by laws including those requiring reasonable cause to conduct search and seizure of private property as well as bringing illegal possetion charges in the court of law.

To not understand all that is to be grossly ignorant of how our system works.

Even more important is that attempting to confiscate ARs that were legally purchased, absolutely violates the Constitution.

{...
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
...
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}

Ex post facto is where you try to later make illegal that which was legal when done. So you can not legally retroactively make ARs illegal.
That is strictly forbidden by article 1, section 9, of the constitution.
If the federal government would ever try to do that, then it must be destroyed, as a clear and present danger to the democratic republic as a whole, and everyone individually.

Dummy, the illegal act would be current ownership of a newly banned weapon, not original purchase or ownership before the ban, which may have been perfectly legal at the time.

There is no ex post facto issue here AS EXPLAINED 10 TIMES BY NOW IN THIS THREAD

 

[BULLDOG]

Big difference between a gun owner and a gun nut. They are not the same.

Not in the eyes of autocratic government that wants the general population to be unable to resist tyranny.
The fact police and military are given firearms is proof they are necessary.
And anyone who believes the government can be trusted with weapons more than the general public, is a traitor to the democratic republic.

Got it. You're another one of those anti-government gun nuts.

Define "gun nut," Nazi?

You. I would point to you as a shining example of a gun nut.

Hardly matters who or what is whatever.
The reality is that centralized federal weapons laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution that explicitly say the federal government is prohibited from enacting any weapons legislation at all.

Does that include the federal legislation concerning automatic weapons?

 

[Rigby5]

it's just funny we've gone from WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS to HELL YEA WE'RE GONNA TAKE 'EM!!!

the ironic part is the anti-gun crowd started out thinking the AR15 was fully automatic. the media fed that ignorance 24x7. the anti-gunners eat it up cause they don't want to understand, they just want what they want. but unfortunately the more the anti-gunners learn, the more they just want all guns gone cause they can't define "assault rifle" outside their emotional force field.

when you debate the issue and ask how it's different, their frustration sets in and they just want all semi-automatic guns gone now.

but they're not coming for gun and just want "common sense" when that in fact is the last thing they have cause they refuse to learn, just broaden their definition and demands.

So what did you expect? You have been accusing Democrats for years of coming for your guns when there was no effort whatsoever to do that. Eventually, you get to a point where you realize that if you are going to be accused of it anyway, you might as well consider whether it would be worthwhile. You worked long and hard to convince Beto that it would be worthwhile. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Big fucking cop out.

But as usual, the left blames someone else. Big mean gun pushers made you do it.

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

Its not like those with guns invented the idea of government confiscation of guns.
All dictatorship all over the world and through out history have always done it.
It is the defining element, that allows anyone to tell when a government has become so corrupt that it has to be destroyed.
It has always been the line in the sand.
And it is impossible to read the Constitution without realizing the founders had intended for not a single federal weapons law at all.
So we clearly are already over that line, and the federal government has already become criminal.
We all just keep hoping it was a mistake that will be corrected.
But confiscation can be no mistake.
It is a call to arms.

 

[BULLDOG]

it's just funny we've gone from WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS to HELL YEA WE'RE GONNA TAKE 'EM!!!

the ironic part is the anti-gun crowd started out thinking the AR15 was fully automatic. the media fed that ignorance 24x7. the anti-gunners eat it up cause they don't want to understand, they just want what they want. but unfortunately the more the anti-gunners learn, the more they just want all guns gone cause they can't define "assault rifle" outside their emotional force field.

when you debate the issue and ask how it's different, their frustration sets in and they just want all semi-automatic guns gone now.

but they're not coming for gun and just want "common sense" when that in fact is the last thing they have cause they refuse to learn, just broaden their definition and demands.

So what did you expect? You have been accusing Democrats for years of coming for your guns when there was no effort whatsoever to do that. Eventually, you get to a point where you realize that if you are going to be accused of it anyway, you might as well consider whether it would be worthwhile. You worked long and hard to convince Beto that it would be worthwhile. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Whatever, does not change the fact what Beto proposes is entirely illegal, and therefore would invalidate the entire federal government.

You should make a sign

 

[BULLDOG]

it's just funny we've gone from WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS to HELL YEA WE'RE GONNA TAKE 'EM!!!

the ironic part is the anti-gun crowd started out thinking the AR15 was fully automatic. the media fed that ignorance 24x7. the anti-gunners eat it up cause they don't want to understand, they just want what they want. but unfortunately the more the anti-gunners learn, the more they just want all guns gone cause they can't define "assault rifle" outside their emotional force field.

when you debate the issue and ask how it's different, their frustration sets in and they just want all semi-automatic guns gone now.

but they're not coming for gun and just want "common sense" when that in fact is the last thing they have cause they refuse to learn, just broaden their definition and demands.

So what did you expect? You have been accusing Democrats for years of coming for your guns when there was no effort whatsoever to do that. Eventually, you get to a point where you realize that if you are going to be accused of it anyway, you might as well consider whether it would be worthwhile. You worked long and hard to convince Beto that it would be worthwhile. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Big fucking cop out.

But as usual, the left blames someone else. Big mean gun pushers made you do it.

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

Its not like those with guns invented the idea of government confiscation of guns.
All dictatorship all over the world and through out history have always done it.
It is the defining element, that allows anyone to tell when a government has become so corrupt that it has to be destroyed.
It has always been the line in the sand.
And it is impossible to read the Constitution without realizing the founders had intended for not a single federal weapons law at all.
So we clearly are already over that line, and the federal government has already become criminal.
We all just keep hoping it was a mistake that will be corrected.
But confiscation can be no mistake.
It is a call to arms.

Typical gun nut. Primed for an armed conflict. Something has to be, and will be done about that

 

[Rigby5]

Characteristically, you avoided the question. I'll ask again:
How will Bobby confiscate weapons from those who refuse to give them up?

No I didn't avoid anything. You just don't understand the basics of how enforcement of illegal possetion works.

And thus, you know you cannot meaningfully address my question without the admission that Bobby will have to kill people who refuse to give up their guns to confiscate them - as previously claimed, and denied by you.

Moron, Bobby would be the President of the United Fucking States, who would advocate for and sign specific laws and executives orders. Thats what he is talking about.

He WOULD NOT be someone that enforces and adjudicates specific cases. Our justice system does that and it is bound by laws including those requiring reasonable cause to conduct search and seizure of private property as well as bringing illegal possetion charges in the court of law.

To not understand all that is to be grossly ignorant of how our system works.

Even more important is that attempting to confiscate ARs that were legally purchased, absolutely violates the Constitution.

{...
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
...
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}

Ex post facto is where you try to later make illegal that which was legal when done. So you can not legally retroactively make ARs illegal.
That is strictly forbidden by article 1, section 9, of the constitution.
If the federal government would ever try to do that, then it must be destroyed, as a clear and present danger to the democratic republic as a whole, and everyone individually.

Dummy, the illegal act would be current ownership of a newly banned weapon, not original purchase or ownership before the ban, which may have been perfectly legal at the time.

There is no ex post facto issue here AS EXPLAINED 10 TIMES BY NOW IN THIS THREAD

Wrong.
It is illegal to try to change current ownership to become illegal.
What is legal or not can NEVER be based on an arbitrary whim.
It has to only be based on what is needed for the defense of individual rights.
If the original purchase of an AR was not illegal because it did not violate the rights of anyone, then it can never be made illegal later.
You are totally wrong on this, and never have the courts ever upheld confiscation of what was purchased legally.
When Prohibition made alcohol illegal, the government still had to allow all existing stocks to legally be sold.
What was done legally in the past can now now ever be made illegal.
If the sale of ARs were to become illegal, all those existing ARs in possession would have to be grandfathered in.
That is what had to be done with all the machine guns owned previously before new machine guns were made illegal.
You can NEVER confiscate that which was legally purchased.
You do not understand what the ex post facto laws mean.
Confiscation of what was legal is never legal.

 

[Rigby5]

Not in the eyes of autocratic government that wants the general population to be unable to resist tyranny.
The fact police and military are given firearms is proof they are necessary.
And anyone who believes the government can be trusted with weapons more than the general public, is a traitor to the democratic republic.

Got it. You're another one of those anti-government gun nuts.

Define "gun nut," Nazi?

You. I would point to you as a shining example of a gun nut.

Hardly matters who or what is whatever.
The reality is that centralized federal weapons laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution that explicitly say the federal government is prohibited from enacting any weapons legislation at all.

Does that include the federal legislation concerning automatic weapons?

YES!
Not a single automatic weapons was or could be confiscated when new automatic weapons were made illegal to manufacture and sell.
That is why tens of thousand of average citizens in the US still own and buy automatic weapons.
That is because all automatic weapons built before 1986 have to be allowed as grandfathered in, because they were built before automatic weapons were made illegal.
You can legally buy one of those pre-existing machine guns right now.
They are just very expensive since there are not that many of them.
Nothing legally purchased can later be made illegal and confiscated.
Never.

 

[Rigby5]

it's just funny we've gone from WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS to HELL YEA WE'RE GONNA TAKE 'EM!!!

the ironic part is the anti-gun crowd started out thinking the AR15 was fully automatic. the media fed that ignorance 24x7. the anti-gunners eat it up cause they don't want to understand, they just want what they want. but unfortunately the more the anti-gunners learn, the more they just want all guns gone cause they can't define "assault rifle" outside their emotional force field.

when you debate the issue and ask how it's different, their frustration sets in and they just want all semi-automatic guns gone now.

but they're not coming for gun and just want "common sense" when that in fact is the last thing they have cause they refuse to learn, just broaden their definition and demands.

So what did you expect? You have been accusing Democrats for years of coming for your guns when there was no effort whatsoever to do that. Eventually, you get to a point where you realize that if you are going to be accused of it anyway, you might as well consider whether it would be worthwhile. You worked long and hard to convince Beto that it would be worthwhile. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Big fucking cop out.

But as usual, the left blames someone else. Big mean gun pushers made you do it.

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

Its not like those with guns invented the idea of government confiscation of guns.
All dictatorship all over the world and through out history have always done it.
It is the defining element, that allows anyone to tell when a government has become so corrupt that it has to be destroyed.
It has always been the line in the sand.
And it is impossible to read the Constitution without realizing the founders had intended for not a single federal weapons law at all.
So we clearly are already over that line, and the federal government has already become criminal.
We all just keep hoping it was a mistake that will be corrected.
But confiscation can be no mistake.
It is a call to arms.

Typical gun nut. Primed for an armed conflict. Something has to be, and will be done about that

{,,, Benjamin Franklin that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ...}

All democratic republics come from armed conflict, and have to be maintained through armed conflict.
It is foolish to believe that freedoms could come any other way.

 

[Rigby5]

Not in the eyes of autocratic government that wants the general population to be unable to resist tyranny.
The fact police and military are given firearms is proof they are necessary.
And anyone who believes the government can be trusted with weapons more than the general public, is a traitor to the democratic republic.

Got it. You're another one of those anti-government gun nuts.

Define "gun nut," Nazi?

You. I would point to you as a shining example of a gun nut.

So, enemies of Communism then?

One is either a Nazi thug like you, or a "gun nut?"

No

You are wrong.
The tension is between the people of a democratic republic, and the wealthy elite of a corrupt government that would try to usurp their inherent rights.
Gun control on a federal level is always completely wrong and illegal in a democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

Since there is nothing stopping an AR 15 owner from selling his weapon to a felon, crazy or terrorist......we probably need to ban them

Beto is right

That is foolish and ignorant.
It is and always has been illegal for a felon, crazy, or terrorist to buy a firearm, or someone to sell it to them.
Banning them from ordinary citizens only ensures the very worst and most corrupt, the police and military, would have them.
Thus totally voiding and eliminating the democratic republic, forever.
A democratic republic exists because of the belief only individual inherent rights are the only source of any authority.
But if you give government authority that average citizens do not have, then you have made a self authorizing autocracy. In short, a dictatorship.

 

[Rigby5]

When I was a kid it was enough to ride an imaginary horse, and shoot an imaginary gun, but now the horse can still be imaginary but not the gun.

The guns have to be real because there are real enemies of the democratic republic in the real world.
We would all like to remain in the imaginary world of our childhood, but thing like lies about Iraqi WMD that lead to the murder of about half a million innocent people, proves that the evil people not only are real, but almost totally in control already.

 

[Rigby5]

Big fucking cop out.

But as usual, the left blames someone else. Big mean gun pushers made you do it.

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

You already admitted that "gun nut" is just an enemy of the party, it has no actual meaning.

How can a Nazi fuck like you speak of "rational?"

Please point to the post where you think I made that claim.

“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

That was YOU, right Comrade?

The post below is what you linked to. Where do you think I said gun nuts are just an enemy of the party, or that it has no actual meaning dumb ass?
ACTUALLY, YOU GUN NUTS HAVE BECOME SO MUCH MORE. You are a danger to the safety of our citizens.

View attachment 279783

That is obviously foolish.
If having an AR makes one a danger, then we would not be giving them to the police or military.

And if you try to claim that the police and military are so honest and safe that they are no danger, you clearly would be lying. The police have a record of 10 times the number of illegal murders of average people, and everything the US military has done since WWII was illegal murder of innocents, such as Shock and Awe.

 

[AntonToo]

No I didn't avoid anything. You just don't understand the basics of how enforcement of illegal possetion works.

And thus, you know you cannot meaningfully address my question without the admission that Bobby will have to kill people who refuse to give up their guns to confiscate them - as previously claimed, and denied by you.

Moron, Bobby would be the President of the United Fucking States, who would advocate for and sign specific laws and executives orders. Thats what he is talking about.

He WOULD NOT be someone that enforces and adjudicates specific cases. Our justice system does that and it is bound by laws including those requiring reasonable cause to conduct search and seizure of private property as well as bringing illegal possetion charges in the court of law.

To not understand all that is to be grossly ignorant of how our system works.

Even more important is that attempting to confiscate ARs that were legally purchased, absolutely violates the Constitution.

{...
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
...
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}

Ex post facto is where you try to later make illegal that which was legal when done. So you can not legally retroactively make ARs illegal.
That is strictly forbidden by article 1, section 9, of the constitution.
If the federal government would ever try to do that, then it must be destroyed, as a clear and present danger to the democratic republic as a whole, and everyone individually.

Dummy, the illegal act would be current ownership of a newly banned weapon, not original purchase or ownership before the ban, which may have been perfectly legal at the time.

There is no ex post facto issue here AS EXPLAINED 10 TIMES BY NOW IN THIS THREAD

Wrong.
It is illegal to try to change current ownership to become illegal.
What is legal or not can NEVER be based on an arbitrary whim.
It has to only be based on what is needed for the defense of individual rights.
If the original purchase of an AR was not illegal because it did not violate the rights of anyone, then it can never be made illegal later.
You are totally wrong on this, and never have the courts ever upheld confiscation of what was purchased legally.
When Prohibition made alcohol illegal, the government still had to allow all existing stocks to legally be sold.
What was done legally in the past can now now ever be made illegal.
If the sale of ARs were to become illegal, all those existing ARs in possession would have to be grandfathered in.
That is what had to be done with all the machine guns owned previously before new machine guns were made illegal.
You can NEVER confiscate that which was legally purchased.
You do not understand what the ex post facto laws mean.
Confiscation of what was legal is never legal.

If you are going to call somerthing wrong you may as well contradict what it states.

There is no ex post facto issue here and nothing you said refutes that.


But as to your (so far baseless) claim that it is not constitutional to make possetion illegal, that is easily contradicted by many examples to the contrary including local laws during prohibition that banned possetion (not just manufacture and sale) of alchohol.

 

[Rigby5]

The country decided gay people had a right to get married, and we got gay marriage. The country decided weed should be legalized, and weed is being legalized. The country decided we need universal background checks and a ban on large capacity magazines and guns designed for combat. The NRA and gun nuts will whine, but we will achieve that too.

Do you see the difference between those three examples?

1. marriage is a contract. States should not be able to discriminate based on who is a party to the contract, as long as the parties to the contract are capable of consenting. The end result? LIBERTY

2. The idea that government should be allowed to tell people what they can and cannot take into their own bodies as adults is so alarming and disturbing to me that I'm at my wits end. I am glad we are finally working to overthrow the authoritarianism that brought us a ban on cannabis. The end result? LIBERTY

3. Like the example above, the country decided that we needed to ban alcohol, and we did with a constitutional amendment (which was the correct method, despite the misguided nature of the aim). How did that turn out for us? Now you're going to ban something else. How do you think that's going to turn out for us? The end result? NOT LIBERTY

Thank you for providing me with the classic example of authoritarian hypocrisy. You are no different then the right wing hard-core Jesus Nazis. You are two peas in a pod. Both of you love the state and love the authority and hate liberty.

Why do you hate liberty?

.

What that moron doesn't understand? The German People wanted the national socialists in charge of Germany......what the people want is not always smart.....universal background checks are stupid.....

Let’s put universal background checks up for a vote and see how stupid they are

There are legal ways to do universal background checks that do not allow the federal government to create a registry that violate privacy rights.
One is to simply issue a validation of the ability to buy weapons to everyone, like a code on a driver's license or something.
Another is to have it run by states.
Another is to allow anyone to run the background checks, instead of only federal dealer like now.