Crazy Liberals calling for a total confiscation of firearms

[ding]

I don't give a shit what you think I need. You don't get a vote.

What else you got Moon Bat?

Explain the virtues of assault weapons. Why are they necessary? Why are they good? And why should they be available to everyone?

Force multiplier...

Would you agree that small, concealable handguns are a more popular and effective means of self defense? Self defense is not cinematic. If assault weapons,were,more useful to the average gun owners, why wouldn't they all carry them? Small side arms are fully appropriate and effective as self defense weaponry.

Unless you actually live out the screenplay of Escape from New York each and every day, you're either wrapped to tight to be out and about or hope to be the hero gunslinger as read through Dirty Harry.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

i think that I will wait for the Cliff Notes version to come out.

See post #140.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I alwa

I always get my political opinions from rednecks who display confederate flags on their postings. Doesn't everyone?

I show the good ole Stars and Bars to trigger you stupid Moon Bats. You fall for it all the time. Thanks for playing Moon Bat.

I do find it amusing that you spend all this time posting, and then include the Confederate flag, which may, indeed, convince Bubba and Billy Bob down in Alabama to join your ranks, if they owned a computer, and knew how to use it.

I definitely marginalize people who I don’t think are as good as me, but I am a deplorable. Are Progs supposed to do that?

 

[ding]

I don't give a shit what you think I need. You don't get a vote.

What else you got Moon Bat?

Explain the virtues of assault weapons. Why are they necessary? Why are they good? And why should they be available to everyone?

Force multiplier...

Would you agree that small, concealable handguns are a more popular and effective means of self defense? Self defense is not cinematic. If assault weapons,were,more useful to the average gun owners, why wouldn't they all carry them? Small side arms are fully appropriate and effective as self defense weaponry.

Unless you actually live out the screenplay of Escape from New York each and every day, you're either wrapped to tight to be out and about or hope to be the hero gunslinger as read through Dirty Harry.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

i think that I will wait for the Cliff Notes version to come out.

Or...

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace. The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia. The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[Hossfly]

Liberals are absolutely batshit crazy. They say they are only for "reasonable" gun control laws but then you see that their definition of reasonable includes total firearm confiscation.

Then they wonder why they have no credibility and we can't trust them with our Constitutional rights and they wonder why ridicule them so much.

Hand over your weapons - The Boston Globe


Hand over your weapons

Democrats have even let the word “confiscation” slip out, on occasion. After the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. in 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview that when it came to assault weapons “confiscation could be an option, mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”


Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

Your lying makes you look like an imbecile.

It is hardly a lie when one of the biggest filthy Liberal rags in the country puts out an article trying to give the case for firearm confiscation. Of course this is the same assholes that endorsed Barack and Obama and Crooked Hillary so what do you expect? Liberals are always assholes.

See my signature.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You gun-grabbing deplorables either wrongfully assume that confiscating guns will make anyone safer or you are communist revolutionaries trying to remove our ability to resist, or both.

Admit your true goal so we go ahead and have this war you will lose.

 

[sakinago]

Liberals are absolutely batshit crazy. They say they are only for "reasonable" gun control laws but then you see that their definition of reasonable includes total firearm confiscation.

Then they wonder why they have no credibility and we can't trust them with our Constitutional rights and they wonder why ridicule them so much.

Hand over your weapons - The Boston Globe


Hand over your weapons

Democrats have even let the word “confiscation” slip out, on occasion. After the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. in 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview that when it came to assault weapons “confiscation could be an option, mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”


Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

I don’t like the title of your OP. Crazy and liberal are redundant. Minor qualm but had to point it out.

I agree, too much name calling, you just sound desperate. Just as desperate as the “crazy libtards” you think you’re better than. You don’t need to go there, and when you do...you just look desperate. All the stats, history, facts, etc are on your side. Literally anything they bring up you can beat. You don’t have to sound like a tard to do that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We need machine guns and small explosives to fight off all these commies trying to destroy individual freedom, which is more important than reducing the mortality rate by 0.0002%.



We win this argument.

 

[2aguy]

Hitler took the guns away from the German citizens. We see hw that all turned out.

Liberals want fascism. They’ll get there eventually if we let them.

/——/ Actually hitler only took guns from Jews. If you were Arian and in the Nazi party you got to keep your guns.

I didn’t know that.

Hitler was kind of a dick.

He made sure the party members, especially the ones beating up Jews and their political opponents, had guns and that their victims were unarmed for the beatings...

 

[2aguy]

So a well regulated militia would be able to own, possess and train with the technology of the day that any light infantry should own, possess and train with. Which is why they used the term arms instead of muskets. They were some pretty smart dudes.

And today that means semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with high capacity magazines.

Any questions?

We don't need high capacity magazines...and by that that would be the 100 round drum magazines...we just need our standard 10-30 round magazines......

 

[2aguy]

As gun lovers offer no solution to the flow of blood, as they refuse to take any responsibility for the weaponry available to mass murderers, as gun lovers fail to see the carnage wrought by gun violence, perhaps it's time to talk about mandatory buy backs.

You can talk about it all you want, but since it's unconstitutional that's about all you can do.

Your right to bear arms is already infringed. Do you own a mortar? A flamethrower? An Abrams A-1 tank? A howitzer? Are these not arms?

Fully automatic firing systems are highly regulated. Is that not an infringement?

The domestic arms race is out of control. Public safety outweighs theoretical arguments until those arguments can be understood. I know this is beyond a highly charged social issue. I appreciate and champion the public safety side. And I understand the constitutional aspect.

But I also know that this nation is mature enough to meaningfully debate an important national issue. This ain't kneeling football players or confederate statues. This is literally life and death.

If gun advocates continue to block meaningful gun policy reform, they should be seen as complicit with mass shootings. Failure to recognize the carnage wrought by assault weapons is, sadly at this point, willful ignorance.

Gun ownership bears great responsibility. Measures making guns ownership safer are well worth exploring. The majority of gun owners understand the problems of gun show loopholes, straw man purchasing and thorough background checks.

But at every turn someone refers to the NRA playbook and says that; attempts at gun control will inevitably end in forced confiscation. That gun control laws are ineffective therefore no laws need be written. That any gun law is unconstitutional and therefore should not be considered.

Now. You write a solution.

Moron.... bearable arms are not tanks.....please, do a minimum of research and read Scalia in the Heller decision.....

We already have meaningful gun policy, what we need is a criminal justice system that keeps violent gun offenders locked up in prison...but if we did that, you couldn't keep trying to disarm law abiding people...which is your real goal, otherwise you would go after actual gun criminals.

It isn't the NRA playbook......confiscation has followed registration in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, and California....to name a few.....if you look at gun confiscation around the world....the first step is always registration, and the excuse is always to keep people safe.......but what the uninformed don't understand, the people the gun grabbers want to keep safe are the gun grabbers and their minions.....as they put the other people into mass graves and gas chambers...

 

[2aguy]

As gun lovers offer no solution to the flow of blood, as they refuse to take any responsibility for the weaponry available to mass murderers, as gun lovers fail to see the carnage wrought by gun violence, perhaps it's time to talk about mandatory buy backs.

You can talk about it all you want, but since it's unconstitutional that's about all you can do.

Your right to bear arms is already infringed. Do you own a mortar? A flamethrower? An Abrams A-1 tank? A howitzer? Are these not arms?

Fully automatic firing systems are highly regulated. Is that not an infringement?

The domestic arms race is out of control. Public safety outweighs theoretical arguments until those arguments can be understood. I know this is beyond a highly charged social issue. I appreciate and champion the public safety side. And I understand the constitutional aspect.

But I also know that this nation is mature enough to meaningfully debate an important national issue. This ain't kneeling football players or confederate statues. This is literally life and death.

If gun advocates continue to block meaningful gun policy reform, they should be seen as complicit with mass shootings. Failure to recognize the carnage wrought by assault weapons is, sadly at this point, willful ignorance.

Gun ownership bears great responsibility. Measures making guns ownership safer are well worth exploring. The majority of gun owners understand the problems of gun show loopholes, straw man purchasing and thorough background checks.

But at every turn someone refers to the NRA playbook and says that; attempts at gun control will inevitably end in forced confiscation. That gun control laws are ineffective therefore no laws need be written. That any gun law is unconstitutional and therefore should not be considered.

Now. You write a solution.

Now. You write a solution.

Alright....

1) Any criminal who uses a gun for rape, robbery or murder goes to prison for 30 years.

2) Any violent felon caught buying, carrying or owning a gun, goes to prison for 30 years.

3) The above two actions will be repeated to all inmates when they are booked into prison, it will be displayed on all prison walls, and it will be repeated to the felon upon their release, by the booking room clerk, and their parole officer.

4) All gun free zones will be ended.

There...that covers just about all gun crime....and it has the added value of not needing new laws banning gun magazines, or AR-15s, and it will put violent criminals out of the public space for 30 years, and will deter the smarter criminals from using guns...just like they do in Japan....

 

[ColonelAngus]

As gun lovers offer no solution to the flow of blood, as they refuse to take any responsibility for the weaponry available to mass murderers, as gun lovers fail to see the carnage wrought by gun violence, perhaps it's time to talk about mandatory buy backs.

You can talk about it all you want, but since it's unconstitutional that's about all you can do.

Your right to bear arms is already infringed. Do you own a mortar? A flamethrower? An Abrams A-1 tank? A howitzer? Are these not arms?

Fully automatic firing systems are highly regulated. Is that not an infringement?

The domestic arms race is out of control. Public safety outweighs theoretical arguments until those arguments can be understood. I know this is beyond a highly charged social issue. I appreciate and champion the public safety side. And I understand the constitutional aspect.

But I also know that this nation is mature enough to meaningfully debate an important national issue. This ain't kneeling football players or confederate statues. This is literally life and death.

If gun advocates continue to block meaningful gun policy reform, they should be seen as complicit with mass shootings. Failure to recognize the carnage wrought by assault weapons is, sadly at this point, willful ignorance.

Gun ownership bears great responsibility. Measures making guns ownership safer are well worth exploring. The majority of gun owners understand the problems of gun show loopholes, straw man purchasing and thorough background checks.

But at every turn someone refers to the NRA playbook and says that; attempts at gun control will inevitably end in forced confiscation. That gun control laws are ineffective therefore no laws need be written. That any gun law is unconstitutional and therefore should not be considered.

Now. You write a solution.

Now. You write a solution.

Alright....

1) Any criminal who uses a gun for rape, robbery or murder goes to prison for 30 years.

2) Any violent felon caught buying, carrying or owning a gun, goes to prison for 30 years.

3) The above two actions will be repeated to all inmates when they are booked into prison, it will be displayed on all prison walls, and it will be repeated to the felon upon their release, by the booking room clerk, and their parole officer.

4) All gun free zones will be ended.

There...that covers just about all gun crime....and it has the added value of not needing new laws banning gun magazines, or AR-15s, and it will put violent criminals out of the public space for 30 years, and will deter the smarter criminals from using guns...just like they do in Japan....

Now you are crowding our prisons with lots of Dem voters.

 

[2aguy]

I have a couple of dozen AR-15s and assorted other "assault" weapons. I also have several hundred standard capatity magazines.

I am like 99% of all firearm owners. I have never committed a crime with any of the firearms. I have no intentions of ever committing a crime with the firearms. I keep them locked up. I am a certified NRA firearms instructor and certified range officer.

Why should my Constitutional rights be infringed because somebody else commits crimes? Where is the justice in that? Aren't you Moon Bats always claiming that you are for fair treatment? Why punish me for the crimes of other people?

Shouldn't we punish those that commit the crimes with firearms rather than taking firearms away from the responsible gun owners in this country?

Do you even think about things like this are you simply a stupid Moon Bat that always parrots the idiotic Libtard talking points of the day?

You didn't vote for Crooked Hillary, did you? She ran on a platform to demonize the NRA and to advocate taking away the right to keep and bear arms, didn't you? It would have been really dumb to have voted for somebody like that, wouldn't it?

You don't need that arsenal, Earl. And you don't need a Lamborghini either. There is a speed limit and that car is designed to be driven well over it. Otherwise, it's an impractical mode of transportation.

All those locked up guns are a means to commit a mass shooting. What puts the "mass" in mass shooting? Guns like the ones you have locked up.

And calling me names does not engender any respect. You look childish, boorish and stupid. That's why you support Trump, isn't it? Birds of a feather...

I don't give a shit what you think I need. You don't get a vote.

What else you got Moon Bat?

Explain the virtues of assault weapons. Why are they necessary? Why are they good? And why should they be available to everyone?

Force multiplier...

Would you agree that small, concealable handguns are a more popular and effective means of self defense? Self defense is not cinematic. If assault weapons,were,more useful to the average gun owners, why wouldn't they all carry them? Small side arms are fully appropriate and effective as self defense weaponry.

Unless you actually live out the screenplay of Escape from New York each and every day, you're either wrapped to tight to be out and about or hope to be the hero gunslinger as read through Dirty Harry.

Wrong, again.

Small, concealable guns are harder to shoot and can have a smaller magazine capacity, limiting the law abiding gun owner in his ability to fight off multiple attackers, or to operate the gun if they are injured.

There are few if any 'assault weapons' in private hands right now, so they aren't a problem. The Civilian rifles, like the AR-15, are useful for self defense because they are more accurate to shoot, especially at shorter distances, easier to shoot for females, and can be modified with scopes, lasers and lights which help law abiding people defend themselves.

Some of the uses for AR-15 rifles...home defense, they are useful for people in isolated communities where the police may not be quick to respond, as in the Texas church shooting where the attack was over long before the police arrived......ranchers on the border where they have to deal with Mexican drug runners and illegal immigrant coyotes....for campers out in national forests where a light, AR-15 civilian rifle gives the owner a chance at survival where there are no police......they also help store owners when democrats riot...they kept democrats from looting and burning stores in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Ferguson.......

You are just wrong.....

 

[Flash]

You don't need that arsenal, Earl. And you don't need a Lamborghini either. There is a speed limit and that car is designed to be driven well over it. Otherwise, it's an impractical mode of transportation.

All those locked up guns are a means to commit a mass shooting. What puts the "mass" in mass shooting? Guns like the ones you have locked up.

And calling me names does not engender any respect. You look childish, boorish and stupid. That's why you support Trump, isn't it? Birds of a feather...

I don't give a shit what you think I need. You don't get a vote.

What else you got Moon Bat?

Explain the virtues of assault weapons. Why are they necessary? Why are they good? And why should they be available to everyone?

Force multiplier...

Would you agree that small, concealable handguns are a more popular and effective means of self defense? Self defense is not cinematic. If assault weapons,were,more useful to the average gun owners, why wouldn't they all carry them? Small side arms are fully appropriate and effective as self defense weaponry.

Unless you actually live out the screenplay of Escape from New York each and every day, you're either wrapped to tight to be out and about or hope to be the hero gunslinger as read through Dirty Harry.

Wrong, again.

Small, concealable guns are harder to shoot and can have a smaller magazine capacity, limiting the law abiding gun owner in his ability to fight off multiple attackers, or to operate the gun if they are injured.

There are few if any 'assault weapons' in private hands right now, so they aren't a problem. The Civilian rifles, like the AR-15, are useful for self defense because they are more accurate to shoot, especially at shorter distances, easier to shoot for females, and can be modified with scopes, lasers and lights which help law abiding people defend themselves.

Some of the uses for AR-15 rifles...home defense, they are useful for people in isolated communities where the police may not be quick to respond, as in the Texas church shooting where the attack was over long before the police arrived......ranchers on the border where they have to deal with Mexican drug runners and illegal immigrant coyotes....for campers out in national forests where a light, AR-15 civilian rifle gives the owner a chance at survival where there are no police......they also help store owners when democrats riot...they kept democrats from looting and burning stores in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Ferguson.......

You are just wrong.....

I like ARs because they are cool, fun to shoot and are lethal if the need be.

I don't need any other reasons than that. If somebody else don't like them or need them then that is their problem, not mine.

If the Libtard Moon Bats would just mind their own business this country would be a lot better off.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So a well regulated militia would be able to own, possess and train with the technology of the day that any light infantry should own, possess and train with. Which is why they used the term arms instead of muskets. They were some pretty smart dudes.

And today that means semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with high capacity magazines.

Any questions?

Yes. Is your lover your right, or left hand?

That, aside, I also find it amusing that the founding father that you quoted the most in defence of the 2nd amendment, Alexander Hamilton, was shot dead with a gun, by Burr, who had a political beef with him. In order to be shot dead by Burr, he had to leave DC since it would have been illegal to shoot Hamilton dead in DC, but not on the other side of the Potomac. It is all a very ironic end to a guy who wanted everyone to be able to use a gun legally. My best guess is that he might have had second thoughts about the whole issue in his final moments.

 

[ding]

So a well regulated militia would be able to own, possess and train with the technology of the day that any light infantry should own, possess and train with. Which is why they used the term arms instead of muskets. They were some pretty smart dudes.

And today that means semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with high capacity magazines.

Any questions?

We don't need high capacity magazines...and by that that would be the 100 round drum magazines...we just need our standard 10-30 round magazines......

Depends on the caliber. 20 rd for 308. 30 rd for 556. Same as the military. And yes, we do need to keep saying high capacity magazines unless you want to be left with magazines of 10 or less.

 

[ding]

So a well regulated militia would be able to own, possess and train with the technology of the day that any light infantry should own, possess and train with. Which is why they used the term arms instead of muskets. They were some pretty smart dudes.

And today that means semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with high capacity magazines.

Any questions?

Yes. Is your lover your right, or left hand?

That, aside, I also find it amusing that the founding father that you quoted the most in defence of the 2nd amendment, Alexander Hamilton, was shot dead with a gun, by Burr, who had a political beef with him. In order to be shot dead by Burr, he had to leave DC since it would have been illegal to shoot Hamilton dead in DC, but not on the other side of the Potomac. It is all a very ironic end to a guy who wanted everyone to be able to use a gun legally. My best guess is that he might have had second thoughts about the whole issue in his final moments.

Do you feel better now?

 

[Vandalshandle]

So a well regulated militia would be able to own, possess and train with the technology of the day that any light infantry should own, possess and train with. Which is why they used the term arms instead of muskets. They were some pretty smart dudes.

And today that means semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with high capacity magazines.

Any questions?

Yes. Is your lover your right, or left hand?

That, aside, I also find it amusing that the founding father that you quoted the most in defence of the 2nd amendment, Alexander Hamilton, was shot dead with a gun, by Burr, who had a political beef with him. In order to be shot dead by Burr, he had to leave DC since it would have been illegal to shoot Hamilton dead in DC, but not on the other side of the Potomac. It is all a very ironic end to a guy who wanted everyone to be able to use a gun legally. My best guess is that he might have had second thoughts about the whole issue in his final moments.

Do you feel better now?

Not really. I am still in mourning for Las Vegas, Sand Hook, Sutherland San Bernardino, Orlando, Lafayette, Aurora, Co., Tucson, and over 1,000 other innocent men, women and children gunned down by angy nuts that you love to protect from government tyranny over the last 25 years.

US mass shootings, 1982-2017: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

 

[easyt65]

'Crazy Liberals call for a confiscation of firearms'


NO

A Dozen Times Good Guys With Guns Stopped A Massacre


Again, libtards / snowflakes want the same govt - who illegally spied on the American people, reporters, media, US Senate, and USSC...who illegally leaked classified info / unmasked Americans / used the IRS as a weapon against citizens all in an attempt to rig / manipulate / win an election....who financed / supplied / armed / trained / defended / protected / used our military to help terrorists and / or Mexican Drug Cartels - to seize all of our weapons.....


Ummmm....NO

 

[ding]

So a well regulated militia would be able to own, possess and train with the technology of the day that any light infantry should own, possess and train with. Which is why they used the term arms instead of muskets. They were some pretty smart dudes.

And today that means semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with high capacity magazines.

Any questions?

Yes. Is your lover your right, or left hand?

That, aside, I also find it amusing that the founding father that you quoted the most in defence of the 2nd amendment, Alexander Hamilton, was shot dead with a gun, by Burr, who had a political beef with him. In order to be shot dead by Burr, he had to leave DC since it would have been illegal to shoot Hamilton dead in DC, but not on the other side of the Potomac. It is all a very ironic end to a guy who wanted everyone to be able to use a gun legally. My best guess is that he might have had second thoughts about the whole issue in his final moments.

Do you feel better now?

Not really. I am still in mourning for Las Vegas, Sand Hook, Sutherland San Bernardino, Orlando, Lafayette, Aurora, Co., Tucson, and over 1,000 other innocent men, women and children gunned down by angy nuts that you love to protect from government tyranny over the last 25 years.

US mass shootings, 1982-2017: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

I can totally see why you want to take away the guns of people who had nothing to do with that too. It makes perfect fuck'n sense.