Ante up anti gunners...what will you allow for normal gun owners, what do you want?

[Al Azar]

I suggest you stick close to home, where we don't confiscate stuff, unless you can provide examples of things we have confiscated over the past 250 years.

Precisely. It was entirely up to the individual. No force involved.

It's no different than when another of our arms was generally banned - switchblade knives. Keep 'em, toss them, turn them in. Your choice. No force involved. No demonstrations. No rioting in the streets...


Magazines over 10 rounds in California....if you are caught with one when the new law goes into effect you can be arrested......Rifles with detachable magazines in New York......you have to sell it, or turn it in......

Precisely. It's up to you what you do with contraband. There's no confiscation. Never has been and can't be - it's logistically impossible, so get that out of your head.

Sell your gun or turn it in or go to jail.........that isn't a ban according to you?

We were talking about confiscation, not bans

You sure are wriggling a lot.

Wrong....you don't have to kick in all the doors at once.......Britain didn't, and Australia didn't yet they still confiscated guns....turn them in or be arrested.......

 

[Al Azar]

Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.

Shall not be infringed.

The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

 

[2aguy]

Shall not be infringed.

The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

and yet you still don't explain what common sense gun control is..........

 

[Al Azar]

Germany? What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today? Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?

If so, stop it.

Your trust in government is touching...
But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.

It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.

But, again, we're off-topic. We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.

The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.

The right is not in question. The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.

Shall not be infringed...

Which is why we're discussing registration, not general prohibition.

 

[Al Azar]

Germany? What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today? Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?

If so, stop it.

Your trust in government is touching...
But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.

It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.

But, again, we're off-topic. We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.

The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.

The right is not in question. The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.

I agree.....what do you propose then?

Read my first post in this thread. I answered that question in its entirety. Everything else I've posted since has apparently been a cyber 2x4.

 

[Al Azar]

The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

and yet you still don't explain what common sense gun control is..........

Explained in my first post.

 

[Auld Phart]

Shall not be infringed.

The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

more modern view?

You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?

I'll be dead before that happens

 

[Auld Phart]

Your trust in government is touching...
But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.

It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.

But, again, we're off-topic. We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.

The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.

The right is not in question. The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.

I agree.....what do you propose then?

Read my first post in this thread. I answered that question in its entirety. Everything else I've posted since has apparently been a cyber 2x4.

only if it's made of foam

 

[2aguy]

Your trust in government is touching...
But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.

It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.

But, again, we're off-topic. We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.

The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.

The right is not in question. The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.

I agree.....what do you propose then?

Read my first post in this thread. I answered that question in its entirety. Everything else I've posted since has apparently been a cyber 2x4.

Thank you for participating.

 

[2aguy]

Shall not be infringed.

The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

Yes....the Europe had a more modern view of gun control in the 1920s.....they all cited every single gun law you guys want to create here.....

20 years later 12 million unarmed Europeans were marched into gas chambers....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Your trust in government is touching...
But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.

It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.

But, again, we're off-topic. We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.

The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.

The right is not in question. The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.

Shall not be infringed...

Which is why we're discussing registration, not general prohibition.

Which of course is infringement.

 

[Al Azar]

The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

more modern view?

You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?

I'll be dead before that happens

You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be. You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.

 

[2aguy]

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

more modern view?

You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?

I'll be dead before that happens

You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be. You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.

9 politically appointed lawyers..........not going to trust my Constitution to them.....

 

[Al Azar]

The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

Yes....the Europe had a more modern view of gun control in the 1920s.....they all cited every single gun law you guys want to create here.....

20 years later 12 million unarmed Europeans were marched into gas chambers....

Oh, get off it. Now you're just being silly.

England used to hang pickpockets. France used the guillotine. Countries all over the globe threw people in debt into prisons.

Aren't you terrified that we're going to do these things in the US because, at some time, somewhere, someone did that to someone else?

Get a grip. You're coming across as hysterical, which, BTW, is the last sort of person who should be armed.

 

[Auld Phart]

Don/t know much about the 2nd, I see

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

more modern view?

You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?

I'll be dead before that happens

You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be. You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.

and neither do you.

Wisdom?

If SCOTUS change laws concerning the 2nd too much, you're going to need to change the 2nd.

and that is going to take more than the left can do alone

 

[Al Azar]

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

more modern view?

You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?

I'll be dead before that happens

You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be. You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.

9 politically appointed lawyers..........not going to trust my Constitution to them.....

They all just happen to be lawyers right now. There's no requirement that they be.

 

[Al Azar]

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.

HIllarious

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd. Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.

more modern view?

You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?

I'll be dead before that happens

You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be. You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.

and neither do you.

Wisdom?

If SCOTUS change laws concerning the 2nd too much, you're going to need to change the 2nd.

and that is going to take more than the left can do alone

There's no need to change something when a reviewed and reconsidered interpretation serves the purpose.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?

I mean really,what sounds like the better path?

 

[flacaltenn]

This thread has been out of CDZ and into Gen Discuss. It is too confrontational to be a CDZ debate.

Please obey the rules of the new forum. Trolling and excessive personal abuse is still an infract.

 

[2aguy]

Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?

I mean really,what sounds like the better path?

They don't care about criminals......they vote democrat........gun owners...they hate them.....so talking truth, facts and reality mean nothing to the gun grabbers.....