Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bearing arms is a right; how are you going to make possession of one a crime?

We already have. If you are a felon it's illegal for you in most states to be in possession of a firearm. Just like you lost your right to vote in most states.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you now admit that it's the gun and not the rape that you want punished.

No, I want the person punished for both.

And you're wrong about a felon having a gun in the house if there's a not-forbidden-person in the house. Here's one example; there are more.

NJ Court: Husband Loses Gun Rights Because Wife Is a Felon

Last week a New Jersey appellate court upheld the ruling that a southern New Jersey man cannot own guns because his wife is a felon "who's been accused of domestic violence."

www.breitbart.com

I only ask one thing: that you admit you support gun control and that you're not a defender of the 2nd Amendment protections of the right to keep and bear arms. You want "reasonable gun control measures" just like all other gun controllers. You only disagree with them on what is or is not reasonable.

Part of a penalty for committing a crime is losing some rights like firearm possession and voting in most states. Just like you don't have a right to choose where you live if you've been convicted of pedophilia. You can't live X amount of distance of a school, and that distance is determined state by state. You can be discriminated against when looking for work if you were a convicted felon. I won't rent any of my apartments to convicted felons. I have in the past and it led to nothing but huge problems and costs I didn't need.

 

[freyasman]

Bearing arms is a right; how are you going to make possession of one a crime?

We already have. If you are a felon it's illegal for you in most states to be in possession of a firearm. Just like you lost your right to vote in most states.

And that's wrong, IMO.

 

[Winston]

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the **** do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

You're going to claim those battles as evidence that, in the United States, which didn't yet exist, required guns to be kept in an armory? There was a freaking war fought over those rules. So you admit that you made it up about most cities in the United States having the armory rule. That explains your anger in the rest of your post; liars generally do react with anger when caught in a lie.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in effect, gun-related or otherwise. That they are in effect does not make them constitutional. Even a leftist must admit that, considering all the lawsuits the left files against existing law.

And I didn't say that sawed-off shotguns are used in the military; I said that short-barreled shotguns are used in the military. Here's just one article about them but you could spend 6 months reading about short-barreled shotguns in military use:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

The sawed-off shotgun was not banned because it was sawed off; it was banned if sawing it off made it a short-barreled shotgun. I can saw off my 30-inch Ithaca to 18.25 inches and be perfectly legal. Sawed-off shotguns are not banned; short-barreled shotguns are.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

I asked for quotes from the Founders because you said that they treated gun rights as a collective right. Now you admit that you can't support that statement. Yet another made-up lie and you're acting like a 12-year-old, trying to make sure that no one questions your lies because the cost of questioning is your anger. So the Founders actually did NOT view it as a collective right. You cannot provide a single quote to back up your lie.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

Justice Stevens was among the most liberal justices in modern times. If you recall, he dissented in Heller. That means that his opinion was in the minority. You argue that the ban on short-barreled shotguns is constitutional because no majority of Supreme Court Justices have declared it unconstitutional and then claim Stevens is right on a case that the Court did decide. You really like to have it both ways.

So, in reality, my opinion is the only one that matters to me, just as yours is to you. That the Supreme Court ruled something constitutional or did not rule it so is pretty meaningless. That Burger's Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right was overturned. Did the Constitution change? No; new Justices came with different opinions. That the Supreme Court overturns itself from time to time, that 9 brilliant legal scholars disagree on simple points of law, just proves that their opinions are, literally, nothing more than their opinions. Often, though, the left wing of the Court actually knows that they're lying so their expressed "opinion" is not actually their opinion; it's their agenda.

Generally, Supreme Court Justices are smart people. I'm always interested in their opinions and consider both sides, the decision and the dissent, in forming my own opinions but, in the end, the Constitution is not difficult to understand and I understand it quite well.

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

And yet you say nothing about the mass shootings every single day in Chicago. Like all leftists, you hate minorities and you only use them to further your socialist agenda.

Look asshole, I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Yes, damn skippy, the founders talked very little about owning a gun as a means of self defense. Unlike you, I have spent time wearing the white gloves and going through historical documents at major universities. Why is it that for two hundred damn years every judge, every court, saw the second amendment as a collective right? That alone ought to give you cause to think for a moment. And Stevens, he was appointed by a Republican. WTF, does that not mean anything?

Being straight up, I have forgotten more about American history, especially colonial history, than your ass will ever ******* know. I mean I am knee deep into the subject at the moment in a graduate level course at a top ten university. The second amendment is a collective right, period. Only fools, morons, and bought and paid assholes believe otherwise. Embrace the fact that you are a useful idiot in a topic that just might destroy this country. I mean it is absolutely comical, that you think your damn ass knows more about law, and the C
onstitution, than judges that have spent years, did you get that YEARS, studying law. Yep, your stupid ass just knows that it is wrong to ban sawed off shotguns. I mean what kind of self-absorbed asshole actually believes they know more than almost a hundred years of jurist prudence. I mean I doubt that dumbass SCOTUS justice Barret is even that self-consumed. Should you be the next SCOTUS appointment?

But the part that really shows your ignorance is that bit about mass shootings in Chicago. I mean you don't want to get me started on that shit. The fact that you bring it up reveals how damn freaking ignorant your ass really is. I would be happy to explain to you how all those gangbangers in Chicago get their "arms". Hell, I know a dude that made a fortune getting those arms to them. At least until he wound up in a federal pen. You are just one of many of the useful idiots that the gun manufacturers depend upon. You should be proud of yourself.

 

[freyasman]

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the **** do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

You're going to claim those battles as evidence that, in the United States, which didn't yet exist, required guns to be kept in an armory? There was a freaking war fought over those rules. So you admit that you made it up about most cities in the United States having the armory rule. That explains your anger in the rest of your post; liars generally do react with anger when caught in a lie.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in effect, gun-related or otherwise. That they are in effect does not make them constitutional. Even a leftist must admit that, considering all the lawsuits the left files against existing law.

And I didn't say that sawed-off shotguns are used in the military; I said that short-barreled shotguns are used in the military. Here's just one article about them but you could spend 6 months reading about short-barreled shotguns in military use:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

The sawed-off shotgun was not banned because it was sawed off; it was banned if sawing it off made it a short-barreled shotgun. I can saw off my 30-inch Ithaca to 18.25 inches and be perfectly legal. Sawed-off shotguns are not banned; short-barreled shotguns are.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

I asked for quotes from the Founders because you said that they treated gun rights as a collective right. Now you admit that you can't support that statement. Yet another made-up lie and you're acting like a 12-year-old, trying to make sure that no one questions your lies because the cost of questioning is your anger. So the Founders actually did NOT view it as a collective right. You cannot provide a single quote to back up your lie.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

Justice Stevens was among the most liberal justices in modern times. If you recall, he dissented in Heller. That means that his opinion was in the minority. You argue that the ban on short-barreled shotguns is constitutional because no majority of Supreme Court Justices have declared it unconstitutional and then claim Stevens is right on a case that the Court did decide. You really like to have it both ways.

So, in reality, my opinion is the only one that matters to me, just as yours is to you. That the Supreme Court ruled something constitutional or did not rule it so is pretty meaningless. That Burger's Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right was overturned. Did the Constitution change? No; new Justices came with different opinions. That the Supreme Court overturns itself from time to time, that 9 brilliant legal scholars disagree on simple points of law, just proves that their opinions are, literally, nothing more than their opinions. Often, though, the left wing of the Court actually knows that they're lying so their expressed "opinion" is not actually their opinion; it's their agenda.

Generally, Supreme Court Justices are smart people. I'm always interested in their opinions and consider both sides, the decision and the dissent, in forming my own opinions but, in the end, the Constitution is not difficult to understand and I understand it quite well.

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

And yet you say nothing about the mass shootings every single day in Chicago. Like all leftists, you hate minorities and you only use them to further your socialist agenda.

Look asshole, I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Yes, damn skippy, the founders talked very little about owning a gun as a means of self defense. Unlike you, I have spent time wearing the white gloves and going through historical documents at major universities. Why is it that for two hundred damn years every judge, every court, saw the second amendment as a collective right? That alone ought to give you cause to think for a moment. And Stevens, he was appointed by a Republican. WTF, does that not mean anything?

Being straight up, I have forgotten more about American history, especially colonial history, than your ass will ever ******* know. I mean I am knee deep into the subject at the moment in a graduate level course at a top ten university. The second amendment is a collective right, period. Only fools, morons, and bought and paid assholes believe otherwise. Embrace the fact that you are a useful idiot in a topic that just might destroy this country. I mean it is absolutely comical, that you think your damn ass knows more about law, and the C
onstitution, than judges that have spent years, did you get that YEARS, studying law. Yep, your stupid ass just knows that it is wrong to ban sawed off shotguns. I mean what kind of self-absorbed asshole actually believes they know more than almost a hundred years of jurist prudence. I mean I doubt that dumbass SCOTUS justice Barret is even that self-consumed. Should you be the next SCOTUS appointment?

But the part that really shows your ignorance is that bit about mass shootings in Chicago. I mean you don't want to get me started on that shit. The fact that you bring it up reveals how damn freaking ignorant your ass really is. I would be happy to explain to you how all those gangbangers in Chicago get their "arms". Hell, I know a dude that made a fortune getting those arms to them. At least until he wound up in a federal pen. You are just one of many of the useful idiots that the gun manufacturers depend upon. You should be proud of yourself.

You're full of shit.

Plain and simple.




Now **** off.

 

[woodwork201]

You didn't say a lesser sentence you said a reduced sentence. Better go back to Sesame street. A reduced sentence is a sentence that has been reduced. The judge sentenced him to 12 years in prison for rape, but suspended 4 of those years. That's a reduced sentence.

I'll admit to having used both words, reduced and lesser. In post 1120, the last one that you quoted and responded using "reduced" I used lesser. But it's semantics. Lessened is a recognized synonym for reduced.

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

Bottom line is that you support lesser sentences for rapists that use a knife. You're OK with rapists who use a knife being released sooner than those who use a gun simply because they chose the convenience of a gun to gain control over their victim. I can't find any polls to support it but I'll bet you a month's wages that women raped by men with knives and women raped by men with no weapons other than their hands and their dicks disagree with you. They want their rapists in jail for as long as possible. And they represent 94% of rape victims.

 

[woodwork201]

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the **** do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

You're going to claim those battles as evidence that, in the United States, which didn't yet exist, required guns to be kept in an armory? There was a freaking war fought over those rules. So you admit that you made it up about most cities in the United States having the armory rule. That explains your anger in the rest of your post; liars generally do react with anger when caught in a lie.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in effect, gun-related or otherwise. That they are in effect does not make them constitutional. Even a leftist must admit that, considering all the lawsuits the left files against existing law.

And I didn't say that sawed-off shotguns are used in the military; I said that short-barreled shotguns are used in the military. Here's just one article about them but you could spend 6 months reading about short-barreled shotguns in military use:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

The sawed-off shotgun was not banned because it was sawed off; it was banned if sawing it off made it a short-barreled shotgun. I can saw off my 30-inch Ithaca to 18.25 inches and be perfectly legal. Sawed-off shotguns are not banned; short-barreled shotguns are.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

I asked for quotes from the Founders because you said that they treated gun rights as a collective right. Now you admit that you can't support that statement. Yet another made-up lie and you're acting like a 12-year-old, trying to make sure that no one questions your lies because the cost of questioning is your anger. So the Founders actually did NOT view it as a collective right. You cannot provide a single quote to back up your lie.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

Justice Stevens was among the most liberal justices in modern times. If you recall, he dissented in Heller. That means that his opinion was in the minority. You argue that the ban on short-barreled shotguns is constitutional because no majority of Supreme Court Justices have declared it unconstitutional and then claim Stevens is right on a case that the Court did decide. You really like to have it both ways.

So, in reality, my opinion is the only one that matters to me, just as yours is to you. That the Supreme Court ruled something constitutional or did not rule it so is pretty meaningless. That Burger's Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right was overturned. Did the Constitution change? No; new Justices came with different opinions. That the Supreme Court overturns itself from time to time, that 9 brilliant legal scholars disagree on simple points of law, just proves that their opinions are, literally, nothing more than their opinions. Often, though, the left wing of the Court actually knows that they're lying so their expressed "opinion" is not actually their opinion; it's their agenda.

Generally, Supreme Court Justices are smart people. I'm always interested in their opinions and consider both sides, the decision and the dissent, in forming my own opinions but, in the end, the Constitution is not difficult to understand and I understand it quite well.

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

And yet you say nothing about the mass shootings every single day in Chicago. Like all leftists, you hate minorities and you only use them to further your socialist agenda.

Look asshole, I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Yes, damn skippy, the founders talked very little about owning a gun as a means of self defense. Unlike you, I have spent time wearing the white gloves and going through historical documents at major universities. Why is it that for two hundred damn years every judge, every court, saw the second amendment as a collective right? That alone ought to give you cause to think for a moment. And Stevens, he was appointed by a Republican. WTF, does that not mean anything?

Being straight up, I have forgotten more about American history, especially colonial history, than your ass will ever ******* know. I mean I am knee deep into the subject at the moment in a graduate level course at a top ten university. The second amendment is a collective right, period. Only fools, morons, and bought and paid assholes believe otherwise. Embrace the fact that you are a useful idiot in a topic that just might destroy this country. I mean it is absolutely comical, that you think your damn ass knows more about law, and the C
onstitution, than judges that have spent years, did you get that YEARS, studying law. Yep, your stupid ass just knows that it is wrong to ban sawed off shotguns. I mean what kind of self-absorbed asshole actually believes they know more than almost a hundred years of jurist prudence. I mean I doubt that dumbass SCOTUS justice Barret is even that self-consumed. Should you be the next SCOTUS appointment?

But the part that really shows your ignorance is that bit about mass shootings in Chicago. I mean you don't want to get me started on that shit. The fact that you bring it up reveals how damn freaking ignorant your ass really is. I would be happy to explain to you how all those gangbangers in Chicago get their "arms". Hell, I know a dude that made a fortune getting those arms to them. At least until he wound up in a federal pen. You are just one of many of the useful idiots that the gun manufacturers depend upon. You should be proud of yourself.

Take your white gloves off your private parts and tell us some of those quotes that you read in those documents in university libraries. You keep telling us how smart you are while demonstrating how ignorant you are.

No, that Stevens was appointed by a Republican means nothing. The only thing that means a thing is what he has said and done on the Court.

You claim that the Justices must certainly know more about the Constitution than do I because they spent years studying law? Well, that's an idiotic statement on its face. The question is how many years did they study the Constitution and, then, what did they do with what they learned. Since 5 Justices agree with me on the individual right, and 4 Justices lied, it's clear that one cannot make any judgment on Constitution based solely on what the Supreme Court says.

If I'm a useful idiot because I disagree with Stevens, then you're also saying that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito are idiots. Somehow, you put yourself above them, being smarter than the majority, and accuse me? Typical, hot-headed, angry, hating, from the left. All the years that Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer spent studying the law and they still got it wrong.

And I don't believe for a second that you're in a graduate level American History course at a top 10 college. People who are in those courses are able to communicate and debate, presenting ideas, logic, supporting evidence, and reason. You've demonstrated absolutely no ability to do any of those. You're ignorant of the law of the Constitution, and of history and you have no ability to communicate or make a point.

You say you're too busy to provide supporting evidence for your arguments but you're not too busy to continue making long, meaningless, unsupported, and angry, posts to anyone who challenges you.

And, no, you have not forgotten more than I know about early American history but it's quite clear that you've forgotten all that YOU ever knew, if you ever knew anything, about early American history.

 

[woodwork201]

Bearing arms is a right; how are you going to make possession of one a crime?

We already have. If you are a felon it's illegal for you in most states to be in possession of a firearm. Just like you lost your right to vote in most states.

And you're suggesting that it's constitutional? At least Blues Man admits he doesn't care about the Constitution; he's an authoritarian and wants government to enforce his will on the masses in the same way Antifa and the left want it. Does that also apply to you?

 

[woodwork201]

Part of a penalty for committing a crime is losing some rights like firearm possession and voting in most states. Just like you don't have a right to choose where you live if you've been convicted of pedophilia. You can't live X amount of distance of a school, and that distance is determined state by state. You can be discriminated against when looking for work if you were a convicted felon. I won't rent any of my apartments to convicted felons. I have in the past and it led to nothing but huge problems and costs I didn't need.

I'll ask once again but, just as Blues Man refused multiple times to answer, you'll refuse to answer again, I'm sure.

If a person is convicted of felony littering, and then later is accused of rape, can he be surgically castrated and his dick removed without a trial and without an attorney? Could they torture him until he confesses and refuse to let him call as witnesses in his defense his entire extended family who will testify, and has videos and photos to back it up, that he was with them at a family reunion at the time of the rape?

Or would those actions violate a whole bunch of his rights, even those explicitly protected by the Constitution.

If your answer is, as was Blues Man's, that people surrender their rights when they commit a crime, please also provide the constitutional authority, or even common law authority, for that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'll ask once again but, just as Blues Man refused multiple times to answer, you'll refuse to answer again, I'm sure.

If a person is convicted of felony littering, and then later is accused of rape, can he be surgically castrated and his dick removed without a trial and without an attorney? Could they torture him until he confesses and refuse to let him call as witnesses in his defense his entire extended family who will testify, and has videos and photos to back it up, that he was with them at a family reunion at the time of the rape?

Or would those actions violate a whole bunch of his rights, even those explicitly protected by the Constitution.

If your answer is, as was Blues Man's, that people surrender their rights when they commit a crime, please also provide the constitutional authority, or even common law authority, for that.

I can probably site a court decision that ruled that way.

I never said you lose all your rights, what I said is that you lose some of your rights. You get to keep most of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'll admit to having used both words, reduced and lesser. In post 1120, the last one that you quoted and responded using "reduced" I used lesser. But it's semantics. Lessened is a recognized synonym for reduced.

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

Bottom line is that you support lesser sentences for rapists that use a knife. You're OK with rapists who use a knife being released sooner than those who use a gun simply because they chose the convenience of a gun to gain control over their victim. I can't find any polls to support it but I'll bet you a month's wages that women raped by men with knives and women raped by men with no weapons other than their hands and their dicks disagree with you. They want their rapists in jail for as long as possible. And they represent 94% of rape victims.

I'm sure women who were truly raped would like to see them spend the rest of their lives in prison. For a woman, being raped is the most traumatic thing that happened in their lives. It's not like if a woman would rape a guy. Most of us would sit back and enjoy it.

I don't know what you can't understand about additional crimes. In our state and many others, a murderer doesn't get the death penalty unless he or she killed in a commission of another crime. If somebody is robbing a store and the clerk pulls out a gun but the robber kills the clerk first, he is up for the death penalty. If he and the clerk got into an argument, and he kills the clerk, then all he can get is life in prison. Do you understand additional crimes now?

It's not that one murder is less severe than the other. The clerk is dead either way. But by him robbing the store when he killed the clerk is an additional crime; a crime that is added to the murder charge.

 

[woodwork201]

I can probably site a court decision that ruled that way.

I never said you lose all your rights, what I said is that you lose some of your rights. You get to keep most of them.

You get to keep some of them? When you get to keep some of them that makes them privileges and not rights. And, once again, you don't really address the question. If they can lose their right to keep and bear arms simply because Congress wanted it that way, could Congress strip felons of all those other rights?

And, please do, cite a court decision supporting denying a convicted felon the right to a trial or to an attorney or any other right other than to vote or to own guns - and let me remind you that the 14th Amendment allows for removing the right to vote for crimes. No such allowance is made for the right to keep and bear arms; that right is explicitly protected from any infringement.

 

[woodwork201]

I'll admit to having used both words, reduced and lesser. In post 1120, the last one that you quoted and responded using "reduced" I used lesser. But it's semantics. Lessened is a recognized synonym for reduced.

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

Bottom line is that you support lesser sentences for rapists that use a knife. You're OK with rapists who use a knife being released sooner than those who use a gun simply because they chose the convenience of a gun to gain control over their victim. I can't find any polls to support it but I'll bet you a month's wages that women raped by men with knives and women raped by men with no weapons other than their hands and their dicks disagree with you. They want their rapists in jail for as long as possible. And they represent 94% of rape victims.

I'm sure women who were truly raped would like to see them spend the rest of their lives in prison. For a woman, being raped is the most traumatic thing that happened in their lives. It's not like if a woman would rape a guy. Most of us would sit back and enjoy it.

I don't know what you can't understand about additional crimes. In our state and many others, a murderer doesn't get the death penalty unless he or she killed in a commission of another crime. If somebody is robbing a store and the clerk pulls out a gun but the robber kills the clerk first, he is up for the death penalty. If he and the clerk got into an argument, and he kills the clerk, then all he can get is life in prison. Do you understand additional crimes now?

It's not that one murder is less severe than the other. The clerk is dead either way. But by him robbing the store when he killed the clerk is an additional crime; a crime that is added to the murder charge.

You're insisting on additional crimes to fix the wrong problem. The problem isn't that we need to add crimes to get the death penalty for murder; the right fix is to allow the death penalty for murder. You think we need to add the gun crime to get criminals in jail long enough to dissuade them from future crimes but you're wrong. What we need to do is to put them in prison longer for rape, for robbery, for murder. Your solution doesn't solve the sentencing problem because it only applies to those crimes committed with guns. We need the deterrent of long, harsh, sentences to apply to all violent crimes, to include rape, robbery, and murder, among others.

But extra sentences for using a gun in a crime is a red herring to this thread. We're discussing infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. As part of that, we were discussing whether felons should own guns. Blocking felons from owning guns is an infringement. Blocking people from owning short barreled shotguns and rifles is an infringements. Blocking people from owning AR-15s is an infringement. To allow any of these infringements is to allow that the Constitution is no longer any impediment to the tyranny of government and you accept that. I do not accept it. I may not be able to stop it or fight it, but I will never call any of it acceptable.

 

[woodwork201]

If somebody is robbing a store and the clerk pulls out a gun but the robber kills the clerk first, he is up for the death penalty. If he and the clerk got into an argument, and he kills the clerk, then all he can get is life in prison. Do you understand additional crimes now?

It's not that one murder is less severe than the other. The clerk is dead either way. But by him robbing the store when he killed the clerk is an additional crime; a crime that is added to the murder charge.

Notice that in your example here the robber can get the death penalty without the addition of a gun crime. If the law is broken and doesn't allow the death penalty for murder without special circumstances then change the law. Don't create new laws just to create the special circumstances. For one thing, it let's anyone who didn't break the special circumstance to get off lighter.

And, in spite of your argument and that of 2aguy, you're not doing gun rights any favor by letting the anti-gunners control the debate and allowing them to define the gun as part of the evil. The gun did nothing wrong; a person did. Whether they used a knife, a gun, or a pencil, it's all the same. When you give special circumstance to the gun you allow the left to say the gun, itself, is part of the evil. You've fallen into their trap.

 

[2aguy]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Gun makers do not get immunity from product liability, they have protection against lawfare by left wing anti-gun lawyers...

Do you understand this?


Yes....for faulty products......democrats want to strip the Lawful Commerce in Arms act so anti-gun leftist lawyers can sue gun makers and gun stores when criminals use their guns illegally for crime.

We are not talking product liability, we are talking LawFare, against gun makers....

What we are talking about is someone drowning their wife in a pool, and then the family suing the pool company because they made the pool.....

Big difference.

 

[2aguy]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Do you understand that the AR-15 is simply a regular rifle? There is nothing special about it...

Do you understand that the AR-15 is not a "Weapon of War?" That it has never been used by the military as a rifle?

Do you understand that the pump action shotgun, and the bolt action rifle are current weapons in use by our military and military forces around the world?

D

 

[2aguy]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

The AR-15 is not a special type of weapon.....it is a regular, standard, semi-automatic rifle, no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun....

It is not a "Weapon of War." It has never been used by our military.....

The pump action shotgun, the bolt action rifle are both, actual military weapons....the AR-15 is not...

Do you understand that?

And the Right to keep and bear arms has always been an individual Right, the only reason the Supreme Court stated it as such is because people like you refuse to understand the 2nd Amendment....

It is like understanding that Water is Wet.....and then people like start saying...no, Water isn't Wet, so the Supreme Court has to come in and say, yes......Water is Wet...

These Rights do not exist because of the Constitution...as Scalia Writes....the Right to keep and Bear arms for self defense is a Right that exists outside of the Constitution....has always existed as a function of being a human being.....

Guns weren't stored in an Armory, large quantities of powder were stored in the colonial armories because......there was a risk of exploding....every male member was required to show with their rifle, maybe a pistol, and a quantity of powder......

Where do you guys make this stuff up...

Yeah....the indians come to your farm, and you don't have a rifle because it is in the town armory? Really, you believe that?

 

[2aguy]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Sorry, not the same thing. We do NOT hold pool makers, or car makers, or any other manufacturer responsible in the same way that leftists want to hold gun manufacturers responsible. Your own examples prove it. Sta-Rite wasn't sued because their product worked exactly as it was supposed to and someone used it incorrectly and got hurt; they were sued because their product was badly made and inherently unsafe. Likewise, talcum powder is inherently unsafe; it's not like it was a perfectly safe product and someone decided to eat the whole bottle instead of sprinkling it on their tush and died. I don't know which General Motors case you're talking about, since you were very vague, but I'm guessing it also wasn't a case of a perfectly functional car that someone chose to drive into oncoming traffic.

Nope, wrong about Sta-Rite. They were sued, not for how the product was made, but because they did not put a warning label on the product concerning removing the drain cover. The product was made correctly. The drain was installed correctly by the installer. But some kids, being kids, took the drain cover off. And a girl had her insides sucked out.

Yeah, um, providing explanations as to how to use it properly is part of making the product. Moron.

Moron? Wow, stupid *****. So, if a gun manufacturer doesn't clearly indicate within the packaging that it is imperative to keep that gun secure and unloaded and some little kid finds Daddy's loaded gun and accidently shoots his friend, which has happened TWICE IN THE LAST FREAKIN MONTH in my area, then the families can sue the gun manufacturer? Is that what you are saying? I mean pull your freakin head out of your ass.

You are the idiot.......the democrats want to be able to sue the gun maker when the gang banger steals your gun, sells it to another gang member who then uses it to murder a rival gang member....

They want the family of the murdered gang member to be able to sue the gun maker.....you twit.......that is what you don't understand...

 

[2aguy]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Here....to help you and others understand...

The AR-15 is a regular rifle....it is not special in any way.......it is a semi-automatic rifle, just like every other semi-automatic rifle, pistol and shotgun.....it fires one bullet, for one pull of the trigger, just like all the other rifles, pistols and shotguns.

What has your panties in a bunch is the wrapping paper....the way it looks...that's all.

For example....

You have a Formula one racer.

You take the engine out.

You have a smart car.

You take that engine out, and put it in the body of the formula one racer.

The car with the body of the Formula One Racer, and the engine of the Smart car.........is not a Formula One Racer.....it just has the body of the racer.

Dittos the AR-15...it is not a military weapon, it just has the body of an M4 or M16, the insides are nothing more than a regular rifle.....

You are reacting to the looks of the gun, not the way the gun functions...this is why we don't take your opinions seriously.....we do take your desire to give power to the gun grabbers deadly seriously...

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Do you understand that the AR-15 is simply a regular rifle? There is nothing special about it...

Do you understand that the AR-15 is not a "Weapon of War?" That it has never been used by the military as a rifle?

Do you understand that the pump action shotgun, and the bolt action rifle are current weapons in use by our military and military forces around the world?

D

Do you understand THEY DON'T GIVE A FUK" ?

These are insane people who believe the human condition can only be "improved" through subjugation and complete control by a few authoritarians.

And you're "reasoning" with them?

Not sure who's crazier