CDZ How We Will Finally Deal With Guns America

[Pogo]

See, now that makes me wonder why grandparents get special cashew consideration.
Especially seeing as how I'm not a grandparent.

The point still is, a Constitution has no need whatsoever to explain itself; it simply declares. And yet one time --- and one time only ---- it seems to do just that. I wanna know what they were thinking. And until we know by gum I'm gonna chow down on cashews.

It doesn't matter why the grandparents were mentioned ... That doesn't disqualify anyone else (including you).
The Constitution isn't trying to explain itself ... You are the one that wants some kind of explanation ... Possibly in hopes it means something it doesn't.

I don't have an explanation for it. I don't think anyone does. I'm noting that it's a grammatical train wreck.
It's not that a Constitution needs to be grammatical; it's that a Constitution needs to be clear. This isn't. It looks unfinished. It looks like somebody with a wig must have looked at the finished product and wailed, "who left that in there?"

Nomsayin'?

As long as any discussion of what it means and what it doesn't mean is a relevant question---- so is this.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't have an explanation for it. I don't think anyone does. I'm noting that it's a grammatical train wreck.
It's not that a Constitution needs to be grammatical; it's that a Constitution needs to be clear. This isn't. It looks unfinished. It looks like somebody with a wig must have looked at the finished product and wailed, "who left that in there?"

Nomsayin'?

As long as any discussion of what it means and what it doesn't mean is a relevant question---- so is this.

Of course I understand what you are saying.

But ... It is only unclear if you want it to mean something it doesn't say.
If you read what is written ... And don't try to assume what isn't written ... Then it is clearer.
You assume they may have made some kind of mistake because it doesn't specifically answer a question you want answered.

You want that question answered for your reasons ... Of which they may not have been equally concerned.
In short ... Enjoy your cashews ...

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

I strongly urge you to personally come and try to disarm me.

You seek to spark a civil war in your lust to end the United States, so be willing to be the first casualty.

 

[PredFan]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

We don’t have to deal with guns in this country. Guns are not the problem.

 

[Pogo]

I don't have an explanation for it. I don't think anyone does. I'm noting that it's a grammatical train wreck.
It's not that a Constitution needs to be grammatical; it's that a Constitution needs to be clear. This isn't. It looks unfinished. It looks like somebody with a wig must have looked at the finished product and wailed, "who left that in there?"

Nomsayin'?

As long as any discussion of what it means and what it doesn't mean is a relevant question---- so is this.

Of course I understand what you are saying.

But ... It is only unclear if you want it to mean something it doesn't say.
If you read what is written ... And don't try to assume what isn't written ... Then it is clearer.
You assume they may have made some kind of mistake because it doesn't specifically answer a question you want answered.

You want that question answered for your reasons ... Of which they may not have been equally concerned.
In short ... Enjoy your cashews ... .

Au contraire, I'm assuming nothing. The language in a Constitution is very specific and fussed over until it's just right. That means whatever the purpose of this clause is --- it's not there by accident. And that means somebody wanted it there, for some specific reason. We just don't know what it is.

Again --- as long as there's any discussion on what 2A means and doesn't mean ---- and there always will be (can I own a nuke? A bazooka? A shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile?) --- then this is part of that question.

 

[BlackSand]

I strongly urge you to personally come and try to disarm me.

You seek to spark a civil war in your lust to end the United States, so be willing to be the first casualty.

You know ... At one point in time I might have supported your idea above.

I am to a point that I don't anymore.
They are not equipped to come take your firearms ... And at best would try and require someone else to die trying.

There is no real consequence for their decisions nor desires .. Until it is too late for us all.
They have no leverage ... We have no obligation to entertain their desires.

.

 

[BlackSand]

Au contraire, I'm assuming nothing. The language in a Constitution is very specific and fussed over until it's just right. That means whatever the purpose of this clause is --- it's not there by accident. And that means somebody wanted it there, for some specific reason. We just don't know what it is.

Again --- as long as there's any discussion on what 2A means and doesn't mean ---- and there always will be (can I own a nuke? A bazooka? A shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile?) --- then this is part of that question.

It is there ... It means what it says and nothing else.
They don't really give a fuck you don't like it or think it needs something else.

Again ... Maybe more clear this time ... Shut the fuck up and eat your cashews ...

Edit.
If you want to start guessing what they meant by right to bear arms ...
At the point in time the Constitution was ratified a private citizen could even own a fast sailing ship with up to eight cannons.

Now you can assume that could mean a lot of things.
One thing is for certain ... It wouldn't be for sport or hunting.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I strongly urge you to personally come and try to disarm me.

You seek to spark a civil war in your lust to end the United States, so be willing to be the first casualty.

You know ... At one point in time I might have supported your idea above.

I am to a point that I don't anymore.
They are not equipped to come take your firearms ... And at best would try and require someone else to die trying.

There is no real consequence for their decisions nor desires .. Until it is too late for us all.
They have no leverage ... We have no obligation to entertain their desires.

.

That is my point. Those like the OP want to send police officers to start crushing civil rights, which will result in a bloodbath.

Yeah, the cops will win the first dozen rounds, but then people will start to prepare and we will have a civil war on out hands, which is exactly what the left wants.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Au contraire, I'm assuming nothing. The language in a Constitution is very specific and fussed over until it's just right. That means whatever the purpose of this clause is --- it's not there by accident. And that means somebody wanted it there, for some specific reason. We just don't know what it is.

Again --- as long as there's any discussion on what 2A means and doesn't mean ---- and there always will be (can I own a nuke? A bazooka? A shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile?) --- then this is part of that question.

I strongly urge you to obtain a nuke and keep it in your closet, Pogo. The world will be a far better place in no time if you do.

 

[Yarddog]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

I have to agree, even the 1st amendment has its limitations. Limitations must come about because of the complexities of society. Its just that the larger a society gets ... just like any organism, mutations start to happen and things don't always work out so well as intended.

 

[Pogo]

Au contraire, I'm assuming nothing. The language in a Constitution is very specific and fussed over until it's just right. That means whatever the purpose of this clause is --- it's not there by accident. And that means somebody wanted it there, for some specific reason. We just don't know what it is.

Again --- as long as there's any discussion on what 2A means and doesn't mean ---- and there always will be (can I own a nuke? A bazooka? A shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile?) --- then this is part of that question.

It is there ... It means what it says and nothing else.
They don't really give a fuck you don't like it or think it needs something else.

Again ... Maybe more clear this time ... Shut the fuck up and eat your cashews ...

Oh golly jeepers I appreciate the cashews but it still doesn't address the blessed question, does it.

Why goodness gracious me, no it doesn't.

 

[petro]

Nothing in the OP's demands will prevent the next nutcase from going off. This wasn't meant to be a debate in posters mind.
Just another failure to recognize a larger problem in society as a whole which I outlined in the 50 other threads on this same issue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Au contraire, I'm assuming nothing. The language in a Constitution is very specific and fussed over until it's just right. That means whatever the purpose of this clause is --- it's not there by accident. And that means somebody wanted it there, for some specific reason. We just don't know what it is.

Again --- as long as there's any discussion on what 2A means and doesn't mean ---- and there always will be (can I own a nuke? A bazooka? A shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile?) --- then this is part of that question.

It is there ... It means what it says and nothing else.
They don't really give a fuck you don't like it or think it needs something else.

Again ... Maybe more clear this time ... Shut the fuck up and eat your cashews ...

Oh golly jeepers I appreciate the cashews but it still doesn't address the blessed question, does it.

Why goodness gracious me, no it doesn't.

There is no question.

The right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed, regardless of what you Stalinists want.

No question, no discussion, no opportunity for you to end civil rights.

 

[BlackSand]

That is my point. Those like the OP want to send police officers to start crushing civil rights, which will result in a bloodbath.

Yeah, the cops will win the first dozen rounds, but then people will start to prepare and we will have a civil war on out hands, which is exactly what the left wants.

The first time there is live television coverage of them gunning down an 80 year old man in his driveway because he wouldn't give up his M-1 Garand ...
The shit-storm that would result from that is something most people honestly just cannot imagine.

.

 

[Picaro]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

I strongly urge you to personally come and try to disarm me.

You seek to spark a civil war in your lust to end the United States, so be willing to be the first casualty.

If they were serious they would be going house to house in south Chicago; but, no, they want to whine about white people out in the Burbs. They don't care about criminals having them, so their real agenda is blatantly obvious: disarm everybody but their black and latino street gangs, then send those thugs out to wreak havoc on those they perceive to be standing in their way to power. As I've said before, they want to make their pet gangster completely exempt from any criminal laws, and there are reasons for that, and the reasons of course involve their desire for ethnic cleansing programs.

 

[BlackSand]

Oh golly jeepers I appreciate the cashews but it still doesn't address the blessed question, does it.

Why goodness gracious me, no it doesn't.

For goodness sakes ...Now you are just being difficult ...

.

 

[Picaro]

That is my point. Those like the OP want to send police officers to start crushing civil rights, which will result in a bloodbath.

Yeah, the cops will win the first dozen rounds, but then people will start to prepare and we will have a civil war on out hands, which is exactly what the left wants.

The first time there is live television coverage of them gunning down an 80 year old man in his driveway because he wouldn't give up his M-1 Garand ...
The shit-storm that would result from that is something most people honestly just cannot imagine.

.

I wouldn't count on that much; it didn't happen with the Zimmerman pogrom, so no real reason to expect it to happen now. People will simply hide them or deal underground for the most part.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is my point. Those like the OP want to send police officers to start crushing civil rights, which will result in a bloodbath.

Yeah, the cops will win the first dozen rounds, but then people will start to prepare and we will have a civil war on out hands, which is exactly what the left wants.

The first time there is live television coverage of them gunning down an 80 year old man in his driveway because he wouldn't give up his M-1 Garand ...
The shit-storm that would result from that is something most people honestly just cannot imagine.

.

Don't you figure most democrats would stand up and cheer? Assuming the 80 year old was white, that is.

 

[Pogo]

Oh golly jeepers I appreciate the cashews but it still doesn't address the blessed question, does it.

Why goodness gracious me, no it doesn't.

For goodness sakes ...Now you are just being difficult ...

I was about to essplain that to you in a PM but your profile is locked
Dadgum it to aitche eee double hockey sticks

 

[BlackSand]

Don't you figure most democrats would stand up and cheer? Assuming the 80 year old was white, that is.

No ... I don't think they would cheer.
And the following days would drastically change their lives.

They would begin to achieve a firm grasp on exactly how helpless they would be ...
Along with the unpleasant realization they made the wrong enemies prior to the fight that would be going on.

.