The Right To Bear Arms

.

all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.


Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet. Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.

I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.


everything in moderation, firearms are lethal weapons.

a pump shotgun six round capacity will protect anyone in their home - a WWII, 8 millimeter bolt action, six round capacity rifle will keep them at a distance.

owning a weapon is a responsibility for both its handler and to those present around it.

.


you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.

many people cannot operate a pump shotgun due to physical ailments

my late father was the national HS skeet champion with an Ithaca 37 but after four shoulder and neck operations in his 60s, I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun for home protection because he couldn't operate the 37 pump action

no one has ever lost a gun fight because they had too many rounds in their weapon


you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.



firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.

you obviously do not know about firearms to think six round capacity is not sufficient for personal protection and / or readily reloaded.

your father and others could be issued selective permits pertaining to disabilities.

.


I live in a state where I don't need to worry about morons telling me what sort of weapons I need. I also spent 24 years as a federal law enforcement officer and the standard issued handgun was a Glock 17 (US Marshals Service) or a Glock 22 (FBI) or a SIG 229 and all of those hold FAR MORE THAN 6 rounds.

so you claiming 6 rounds is sufficient when every major police department and every major federal CIVILIAN LE agency says far more shows you are just a fool when it comes to this subject and experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit


experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit ... I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun



sorry, I'm not impressed also anyone who believes there is a need for an automatic shotgun has serious problems that hopefully one day will be addressed.

.
 
Why is Lakhota opposed to me showing off my guns?

s.gif

s.gif
the_right_to_bare_arms_2nd_amendment_tshirt-r8adfbaffc7c1427a9d29f6d712ab3b89_8naxu_324.jpg
'Cause he looks like this:

skinny-kid.jpg
 
[

experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit ... I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun



sorry, I'm not impressed also anyone who believes there is a need for an automatic shotgun has serious problems that hopefully one day will be addressed.

.


semi auto moron. you are the one who has serious problems because you are clueless about firearms and you seem to want to impose your mental failures on the rest of us
 
[

Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?

And your dime store psychology act is just about as good as your lawyer act.

You are a failure at both.

Keep it coming.

This is getting good.

Don't go away mad tinker belle. You are just stupid and out of your league here.

:lol:

Must feel nice to sit behind a screen, anonymous calling folks names..don't it?

The mark of a true tough guy.

Back in the day, when I drove a truck and was a mover, we did a job for a guy who was an actual lawyer. He was pretty much a schmuck. My boss did something for him called a "flat rate" and I found out later why he did it. Anyways, we get the place and he's living in a nice swank Manhattan apartment with lots of nice stuff. He had a lot of the metal and glass furniture pieces, real tough to move. The guy was pretty fussy about it too. And he wanted everything done for him. Packing, wrapping..he was completely unprepared. Well it was just me and a helper and it was tough going, but we got everything done. Then he goes, he wanted a ride. I was like, we generally don't let customers ride with us and then he let us know he was a personal friend of the boss. Which made sense, since he got a flat rate. Well he's getting ready to go and hands me his brief case. While waiting for the schmuck I checked inside it and found his gun.

Once the way to his house in Long Island, he says, "I handle your boss's books and know you guys are making money under the table, give me a hundred bucks a piece and I will forget all about it". To which I said, "Joel (That was his name), I am a mover and I ain't got anything. You? You got a beamer, right? Would be a shame if one day that beamer went up in flames". Then he starts looking around and goes, "Where's my brief case?" I said, "It's under my seat". We sat quiet for awhile and then he says, "You know I was kidding about the hundred bucks, right?" I said, "I wasn't kidding Joel. And at the end of this job? You are going to hand us a hundred bucks each. Oh, I found your gun. You get it back after that".

When we got to his place in Long Island, it was a real sweet place. On the way to the door he goes, "My wife is begging for me to come back" and he swaggered to the door bell. She opens up the door and man, she was a beauty. She looks like Barbra Bach (That may be to old a reference for ya). She goes, "Joel, I made your movers some coffee, get it for them". The swagger was gone and he was obedient.

We moved everything in pretty quickly and were basically done. In one finally act of trying to assert himself Joel starts making us move this glass top table around. After three times I said, "Joel, we are done. Time to pay the bill". Before he could say anything his wife says, "Oh, he'll get it and be glad to do it or he's out again". Joel turned pale. I gave him the bill and he paid it without tipping. And I let him know he forgot about it.

His wife says, "How much did he promise you?" I told her and she said, "Give them 150, each".

After that, I gave him back his briefcase.

That was pretty sweet.

Is that you? Joel?

:lol:


interesting imagination you have

my name isn't Joe
people call me Guido:banana:

I drove a moving truck for 11 years you think I am "imagining" it?

You're too much..

Joel.
 
.

all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.


Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet. Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.

I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.


everything in moderation, firearms are lethal weapons.

a pump shotgun six round capacity will protect anyone in their home - a WWII, 8 millimeter bolt action, six round capacity rifle will keep them at a distance.

owning a weapon is a responsibility for both its handler and to those present around it.

.


you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.

many people cannot operate a pump shotgun due to physical ailments

my late father was the national HS skeet champion with an Ithaca 37 but after four shoulder and neck operations in his 60s, I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun for home protection because he couldn't operate the 37 pump action

no one has ever lost a gun fight because they had too many rounds in their weapon


you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.



firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.

you obviously do not know about firearms to think six round capacity is not sufficient for personal protection and / or readily reloaded.

your father and others could be issued selective permits pertaining to disabilities.

.


I live in a state where I don't need to worry about morons telling me what sort of weapons I need. I also spent 24 years as a federal law enforcement officer and the standard issued handgun was a Glock 17 (US Marshals Service) or a Glock 22 (FBI) or a SIG 229 and all of those hold FAR MORE THAN 6 rounds.

so you claiming 6 rounds is sufficient when every major police department and every major federal CIVILIAN LE agency says far more shows you are just a fool when it comes to this subject and experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit


experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit ... I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun



sorry, I'm not impressed also anyone who believes there is a need for an automatic shotgun has serious problems that hopefully one day will be addressed.

.

small counterpoint here. I will NEVER need quite a few of my enumerated rights. For example, I am not a criminal, so I will never need the 4th,5th, or 6th Amendments in their entirety (God willing) also, I don't NEED to say fuck. However NOWHERE in the COTUS does it specify that I have to prove NEED to enjoy my rights..
 
I drove a moving truck for 11 years you think I am "imagining" it?

You're too much..

Joel.

I spent 30 years dealing with criminal scumbags.

Want your briefcase back?

:lol:

If you took my briefcase-two nice young men in Khaki suits and Ray ban sunglasses would have shown up at your door with a warrant. If that didn't happen, you didn't take my suitcase

by the way be very careful opening it.
 
I realize you do not have a law license, a law degree or training in constitutional law but do you know what DICTA means?

What's your point? You want to say that when the Supreme Court speaks everyone should listen? When federal courts speak everyone should listen? Are you trying to claim some kind of moral high ground? I really don't know why you've said this.
 
I realize you do not have a law license, a law degree or training in constitutional law but do you know what DICTA means?

What's your point? You want to say that when the Supreme Court speaks everyone should listen? When federal courts speak everyone should listen? Are you trying to claim some kind of moral high ground? I really don't know why you've said this.


you don't understand that some comments in a majority opinion do not serve as legal precedent
 
you don't understand that some comments in a majority opinion do not serve as legal precedent

Well thank you for telling me what I understand and don't understand. You want to tell me what I think too?

I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see the point of anything you're saying.

I've come here and I've backed up what I've said, I've made an argument. You can try and break this argument down, but you haven't. You've hardly even touched on what the founding fathers said, you mentioned a few court cases but hardly even bothered to reply to what I've said to them.
 
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
:lol:
Yes.
Who doesn't know that?
You don't.
As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
Things you learn..eh?
:lol:
I laugh at you.
Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]
Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was Reagan a Democrat? The only sound answer is "yes".

Glad I could help you with your ignorance.
You are engaging in the time honored "gotcha" game, which here? Is silly. It also shows the depth of your intellect.
Says she who didn't know that RWR was a Democrat and thought she had me when she triumphantly noted that he was elected in 1968 as a Republican.
:lol:
I continue to laugh at you.
Laugh?
You don't even seem to know I am a 53 year old man. I've posted my picture many times.
Of course I knew that Ronnie (The rapist) Reagan was a Democrat for a short time.
Apparently not.
 
you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?
 
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Yes. However it's the right to bear arms, the right to be in the militia, that causes all the problems.
The right to bear arms is plainly covered, above. There is no problem except for those who decide they do not want to understand this.

Sorry - "look it up here" doesn't cut it. Post quotes.
 
There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
Conclusion: Fail.
Actually you're wrong.
The 2A prevents the US govt from doing something. What?
Infrimnging upon the right to keep and bear arms.
It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.
"A gun"? As in just one? That limiting a person to one gun does not violate the constitution? You jest.
It also, BTW, prohibits anything else that might be an infringement.
So here they make a few related points. First that the right is not unlimited
Like all rights, the right to arms is defined by the boundaries inherent to same. Everyone knows this.
Second that certain people can be denied this right
5th amendment, due process. Not news.
and lastly that common weapons are protected and not "dangerous" or unusual weapons.
But really the 2A means the US govt has to allow weapons to be sold, but it doesn't mean it has to allow ALL weapons to be sold.
Only those weapons not dangerous AND unusual, which are suitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one night have for a firearm, such as (but not limited to) self-defense within the home.
What class(es) of firearm would you argue this excludes?

Oh - it also means the government cannot otherwise infringe on the exercise of the right - you know, restrict the exercise of the right in such a way that if applied to speech or abortion or religion ts unconstituonality would be unquestioned.
 

Forum List

Back
Top