JoeB131
Diamond Member
you always say "common sense" yet you can not define what it means.
Sure i can.
Crazy people can't buy them.
Criminals can't buy them.
Weapons designed for warfare have no business in civilian hands.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
you always say "common sense" yet you can not define what it means.
This is an example of militia control, not gun control.The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
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, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.
LMFAO
Ain't you exaggerating (read that "LYING"), just a smidgen?
According to YOUR number, 7,000 guns a day, EVERY DAY, for 365 days a year, are smuggled across the Mexican border???
More likely 1/10 that amount.
Can you show where ANYTHING in my post that WASN'T factual?
2500 guns illegally sent to Mexican drug cartel that has murdered American agents and hundreds of innocent civilians ain't a "SILLY", and it ain't no "fantasy".
Ask Agent Terry's parents IF their son's murder was a "fantasy", or was the loss of their son "SILLY"???
Here, re-read it and show me any "fantasy" in it.
.............................................
Guy, if I didn't read it the first time, it was because it was fucking retarded.
Your whole premise is that if those couple hundred guns hadn't gone down, the gangs wouldn't have gotten one of the 250,000 other guns that gun shops sell every year that end up in Mexico.
[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]yTJVARoj7gc[/MEDIA] Gun Control is Bullshit - YouTube[/ame]
That's not their goal to begin with. Tyranny, oppression and control are their goals.
Two Posts Merged, to bring OP into compliance. Opening Posts require relevant personal Input by the Poster, not just a copy and paste or a link.
you always say "common sense" yet you can not define what it means.
Sure i can.
Crazy people can't buy them.
Criminals can't buy them.
Weapons designed for warfare have no business in civilian hands.
No. Its regulation of the militia.It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.This is an example of militia control, not gun control.The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
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, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.
Gee, maybe you could tell the surviving family members of the 200+ civilians that were murdered with those 2,500 guns (NOT a few guns),
you always say "common sense" yet you can not define what it means.
Sure i can.
Crazy people can't buy them.
Criminals can't buy them.
Weapons designed for warfare have no business in civilian hands.
if you call THAT "common sense".., i know for certain you have no brain, your IQ rating must be around -5.
.........
No. Its regulation of the militia.It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.This is an example of militia control, not gun control.The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
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, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.
Related to, but separate from, gun control and not related to the right to keep and bear arms.
There is no question that there are controls over guns. The term "gun control" is such a broad issue that it has become a cliche. The dirty little secret of course is to substitute the word "confiscation" for "control" and that's the agenda of the low information often hypocritical left.
There is no question that there are controls over guns. The term "gun control" is such a broad issue that it has become a cliche. The dirty little secret of course is to substitute the word "confiscation" for "control" and that's the agenda of the low information often hypocritical left.
We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. Clearly, we don't have enough control over guns.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't speak to gun control outside the regulation of the militia - in other words, the regulation related to the militia applies only to people in the militia and is therefore not gun control across all those that the the right to arms; further, nothing in the regulation of the militia in reference to firearms may infringe on the right to arms held by those people in the militia.Not just regulated militia units but forcing male citizens to join them, as seen in the Militia Acts. These, together with a small standing army and multiple threats (the threat of invasion, slave revolts, attacks by Native Americans, and attacks by fellow citizens) led to the need of such regulation.No. Its regulation of the militia.It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.This is an example of militia control, not gun control.The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
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, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.
Related to, but separate from, gun control and not related to the right to keep and bear arms.
Or control of people.
Most of those people are criminals killed by criminals, according to the FBI "Crime in the United States" report. Also, many of those deaths are suicides. If someone is going to kill themselves, and they can't get a gun, they'll try something else. Again, guns are used far more often in self-defence.
There is no question that there are controls over guns. The term "gun control" is such a broad issue that it has become a cliche. The dirty little secret of course is to substitute the word "confiscation" for "control" and that's the agenda of the low information often hypocritical left.
We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. Clearly, we don't have enough control over guns.
Or control of people.
Most of those people are criminals killed by criminals, according to the FBI "Crime in the United States" report. Also, many of those deaths are suicides. If someone is going to kill themselves, and they can't get a gun, they'll try something else. Again, guns are used far more often in self-defence.
Well, no, if you take a way guns, a lot of suicides won't happen.
And, no, DGU's are a myth.
Suicides don't count...Japan and South Korea both have higher rate and no guns...Australia got rid of most of their guns...suicide rate stayed the same
Joe...why do you still use suicide...well...you use it to increase your numbers because 8-9,000 gun deaths a year in a country of 320 million is tragic but not relevant.....but It doesn't matter that Japan has a culture of suicide.....your argument is that getting rid of guns lowers the suicide rate...and that is not true just from looking at Japan and South Korea....they have no guns. At all......
Joe...why do you still use suicide...well...you use it to increase your numbers because 8-9,000 gun deaths a year in a country of 320 million is tragic but not relevant.....but It doesn't matter that Japan has a culture of suicide.....your argument is that getting rid of guns lowers the suicide rate...and that is not true just from looking at Japan and South Korea....they have no guns. At all......
If your family member was one of the 11,000 people murdered with guns every year, it would be relevent. It would also be relevent if your found one of the suicide victims, if he killed himself a few feet where you are sitting.