Do republicans have a limit on their philosophy of gun-owning freedom?

[BlackSand]

Just as I thought.

That explains a lot.

.

 

[Preacher]

Like is it in their fantasy for it to one day be legal for anyone to open-carry automatic rifles whenever and where ever?

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line? Like when it comes to open carry, what rules should it have? Should it have no rules? Like some dumb redneck carrying a gun into a bar til 2 AM is okay? Anyone should be allowed to do that?

As usual republicans struggle with nuance when it comes to political issues they are obsessed with. For example, cons will likely reply to this thread and start making the ridiculous claim that I think the 2nd amendment should be overturned. I don't. I also don't think semi-automatics should be illegal. I support laws that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. I also think open carry is ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter if I say all of that though. In their minds I'm a "snowflake" that is outraged over boys playing with toy guns. I'm nothing but a naive, pretentious "libtard" with a Gender's Studies degree who thinks guns are evil. Cliche is something easy for republicans to grasp I guess.

2nd amendment was very clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Any law against the 2nd amendment is ILLEGAL.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
   
   
   
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringe

 

[OKTexas]

True, I did just throw in "discharge" in that post. I was just trying to make you think with nuance and specifics.

Yeah Billy, because most of us never really thought about shooting said firearms. We were hoping to cross that bridge should the occasion ever arise.

Wrong answer, you need to train yourself on how and when you should deploy a firearm. If you wait to think about it when the shit hits the fan you're more likely to hurt someone you don't intend to. You have to make situational awareness a priority every time you carry a gun.

 

[OKTexas]

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line? Like when it comes to open carry, what rules should it have? Should it have no rules? Like some dumb redneck carrying a gun into a bar til 2 AM is okay? Anyone should be allowed to do that?
.

First off, the fact that you are being hostile towards people with a different opinion of your own by calling them gun nuts shows that once again you really are not interested in any kind of serious discussion. Second, what you suggest is already legal here in Nevada and we have had no issues. As a matter of fact, I was out with a buddy of mine a few months ago at a bar and he had a handgun tucked in to a holster in the back of his jeans and he is not a dumb redneck. He happens to be a very successful insurance agent who makes about three quarters of $1 million a year

In Nevada, anyone can carry a weapon anywhere, anytime?

Like is it in their fantasy for it to one day be legal for anyone to open-carry automatic rifles whenever and where ever?

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line? Like when it comes to open carry, what rules should it have? Should it have no rules? Like some dumb redneck carrying a gun into a bar til 2 AM is okay? Anyone should be allowed to do that?

As usual republicans struggle with nuance when it comes to political issues they are obsessed with. For example, cons will likely reply to this thread and start making the ridiculous claim that I think the 2nd amendment should be overturned. I don't. I also don't think semi-automatics should be illegal. I support laws that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. I also think open carry is ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter if I say all of that though. In their minds I'm a "snowflake" that is outraged over boys playing with toy guns. I'm nothing but a naive, pretentious "libtard" with a Gender's Studies degree who thinks guns are evil. Cliche is something easy for republicans to grasp I guess.

Open carry is legal anywhere except schools and government buildings. Concealed requires a permit

I think the premise is important. The government doesn't permit me to own a gun. I already have that right.

However, if they want to take away my constitutional right the burden is on them as to why.

This indirectly makes my point.

I've been asking my congresscritters that same question for years.

 

[OKTexas]

...How does that simple philosophy translate into gun laws?

Looks like you are still here Billy000 and you still have an enquiring mind. But I can tell if you just like to argue or if you want someone to explain to you philosophically why people today should be allowed to keep guns in their homes and carry them on their person in public?

The answers to all these questions are contained within a very long U.S. Supreme Court decision linked below:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

However if you are not a good reader and/or you do not have any basic legal skills it won't make much sense to you.

In a nutshell, the late Justice Scalia explains that the Constitution via the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to own acceptable firearms in their homes for home protection. He then leaves to the various States the power to determine whether or not these people may have the additional right to bear their arms in public either openly or concealed or not at all. He also defines acceptable guns as those which have militia application. He disqualifies sawed off shotguns as unfit for militia duty and therefore calls them "destructive devices" not subject to private ownership.

This is the answer to all of your questions. But I am sure you probably won't get it.

In a nutshell, anything that is more like a "destructive device" is not appropriate for civilian ownership. Ergo, sawed off shotguns, rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenade launchers, hand grenades -- these items are all destructive devices.

Don't argue with me (or anyone else) about assault weapons. That is simply a legislative matter, same as submachine guns, belt fed machine guns, fully auto firearms, etc.

Sorry....the sawed off shotgun was a bad ruling...a stupid ruling...and hopefully that dumb thing will be overturned soon...if you can carry a pistol a short shot gun isn't a problem......that is the craziness of anti gunners....

Thing is you can legally buy a sawed off shotgun, it's called the Judge, a hand gun that fires 410 shotgun ammo.

 

[danielpalos]

Like is it in their fantasy for it to one day be legal for anyone to open-carry automatic rifles whenever and where ever?

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line? Like when it comes to open carry, what rules should it have? Should it have no rules? Like some dumb redneck carrying a gun into a bar til 2 AM is okay? Anyone should be allowed to do that?

As usual republicans struggle with nuance when it comes to political issues they are obsessed with. For example, cons will likely reply to this thread and start making the ridiculous claim that I think the 2nd amendment should be overturned. I don't. I also don't think semi-automatics should be illegal. I support laws that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. I also think open carry is ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter if I say all of that though. In their minds I'm a "snowflake" that is outraged over boys playing with toy guns. I'm nothing but a naive, pretentious "libtard" with a Gender's Studies degree who thinks guns are evil. Cliche is something easy for republicans to grasp I guess.

2nd amendment was very clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Any law against the 2nd amendment is ILLEGAL.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
   
   
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringe

only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.

 

[TheDude]

The OP is an outraged "snowflake" who is nothing but a naive, pretentious "libtard" with a Gender's Studies degree​

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think we merely need a class of Arms, meant for the unorganized militia.

Yeah ... And I think cheese is awesome on a chili-dog ... So what ...

.

simplification. it costs less and even the right can understand it.

So passing laws with restrictions that need to be enforced costs less than no restrictions?

 

[Skull Pilot]

True, I did just throw in "discharge" in that post. I was just trying to make you think with nuance and specifics.

Yeah Billy, because most of us never really thought about shooting said firearms. We were hoping to cross that bridge should the occasion ever arise.

Wrong answer, you need to train yourself on how and when you should deploy a firearm. If you wait to think about it when the shit hits the fan you're more likely to hurt someone you don't intend to. You have to make situational awareness a priority every time you carry a gun.

You have the right to carry but you do not have the right to fire that gun. If you do fire a gun it's up to you to prove you did it for a god damned good reason

 

[danielpalos]

I think we merely need a class of Arms, meant for the unorganized militia.

Yeah ... And I think cheese is awesome on a chili-dog ... So what ...

.

simplification. it costs less and even the right can understand it.

So passing laws with restrictions that need to be enforced costs less than no restrictions?

yes, if no restrictions means, anarchy, over the Order of a more Perfect Union of States.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think we merely need a class of Arms, meant for the unorganized militia.

Yeah ... And I think cheese is awesome on a chili-dog ... So what ...

.

simplification. it costs less and even the right can understand it.

So passing laws with restrictions that need to be enforced costs less than no restrictions?

yes, if no restrictions means, anarchy, over the Order of a more Perfect Union of States.

it won't mean anarchy.

any law abiding citizen should be able to own as many of any kids of guns he wants.
The second he stops being law abiding he loses that right and gets sent to prison

simplification

 

[danielpalos]

I think we merely need a class of Arms, meant for the unorganized militia.

Yeah ... And I think cheese is awesome on a chili-dog ... So what ...

.

simplification. it costs less and even the right can understand it.

So passing laws with restrictions that need to be enforced costs less than no restrictions?

yes, if no restrictions means, anarchy, over the Order of a more Perfect Union of States.

it won't mean anarchy.

any law abiding citizen should be able to own as many of any kids of guns he wants.
The second he stops being law abiding he loses that right and gets sent to prison

simplification

Class III weapons are not impossible to get; it usually just takes time and money. The rest is just right wing fantasy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah ... And I think cheese is awesome on a chili-dog ... So what ...

.

simplification. it costs less and even the right can understand it.

So passing laws with restrictions that need to be enforced costs less than no restrictions?

yes, if no restrictions means, anarchy, over the Order of a more Perfect Union of States.

it won't mean anarchy.

any law abiding citizen should be able to own as many of any kids of guns he wants.
The second he stops being law abiding he loses that right and gets sent to prison

simplification

Class III weapons are not impossible to get; it usually just takes time and money. The rest is just right wing fantasy.

where did I say they were?

You're the one calling for simplification so as to save money

so any law abiding citizen should be able to own as many of any kinds of guns he wants. The moment he stops being law abiding he loses that right and gets sent to prison

it gets no simpler that that therefore it is the least expensive way to handle guns laws

 

[OKTexas]

and who decides if you "need" something or not? me? your neighbor? or how about some group of political idiots that have never met you and have no clue what you need or dont need and why.
I have no idea if you need a gun for instance, how can I make an informed decision on your right to have one? I cant, therefore in order not to make an error I would be forced to accept your word for it and agree that your needs are valid.

You're right, each individual decides how best to exercise their rights. And neither you or anyone else has a right to know what choice/s I make, just like I have no need to know yours.

The Second Amendment doesn't really remove the desire of others to know what your choices may be.
Nor does it influence what you need ... Or what someone else thinks you may or may not need.

It just makes any exception they may have irrelevant ...
At the time of ratification ... It was legal for a private citizen to own a fast ship armed with cannons.

.

My right to privacy trumps someones desire to know. Also I mentioned private citizens owning ships of war earlier in the thread.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Like is it in their fantasy for it to one day be legal for anyone to open-carry automatic rifles whenever and where ever?

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line? Like when it comes to open carry, what rules should it have? Should it have no rules? Like some dumb redneck carrying a gun into a bar til 2 AM is okay? Anyone should be allowed to do that?

As usual republicans struggle with nuance when it comes to political issues they are obsessed with. For example, cons will likely reply to this thread and start making the ridiculous claim that I think the 2nd amendment should be overturned. I don't. I also don't think semi-automatics should be illegal. I support laws that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. I also think open carry is ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter if I say all of that though. In their minds I'm a "snowflake" that is outraged over boys playing with toy guns. I'm nothing but a naive, pretentious "libtard" with a Gender's Studies degree who thinks guns are evil. Cliche is something easy for republicans to grasp I guess.

Troll thread

 

[thereisnospoon]

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line? Like when it comes to open carry, what rules should it have? Should it have no rules? Like some dumb redneck carrying a gun into a bar til 2 AM is okay? Anyone should be allowed to do that?
.

First off, the fact that you are being hostile towards people with a different opinion of your own by calling them gun nuts shows that once again you really are not interested in any kind of serious discussion. Second, what you suggest is already legal here in Nevada and we have had no issues. As a matter of fact, I was out with a buddy of mine a few months ago at a bar and he had a handgun tucked in to a holster in the back of his jeans and he is not a dumb redneck. He happens to be a very successful insurance agent who makes about three quarters of $1 million a year

This is a textbook example of a troll thread.

 

[thereisnospoon]

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line? Like when it comes to open carry, what rules should it have? Should it have no rules? Like some dumb redneck carrying a gun into a bar til 2 AM is okay? Anyone should be allowed to do that?
.

First off, the fact that you are being hostile towards people with a different opinion of your own by calling them gun nuts shows that once again you really are not interested in any kind of serious discussion. Second, what you suggest is already legal here in Nevada and we have had no issues. As a matter of fact, I was out with a buddy of mine a few months ago at a bar and he had a handgun tucked in to a holster in the back of his jeans and he is not a dumb redneck. He happens to be a very successful insurance agent who makes about three quarters of $1 million a year

In Nevada, anyone can carry a weapon anywhere, anytime?

Open carry is legal anywhere except schools and government buildings. Concealed requires a permit

Okay and no problems whatsoever have arisen because of those laws?

Nope. There are reams of stas showing that where open or concealed carry is legal, crime rates are lower.

 

[danielpalos]

simplification. it costs less and even the right can understand it.

So passing laws with restrictions that need to be enforced costs less than no restrictions?

yes, if no restrictions means, anarchy, over the Order of a more Perfect Union of States.

it won't mean anarchy.

any law abiding citizen should be able to own as many of any kids of guns he wants.
The second he stops being law abiding he loses that right and gets sent to prison

simplification

Class III weapons are not impossible to get; it usually just takes time and money. The rest is just right wing fantasy.

where did I say they were?

You're the one calling for simplification so as to save money

so any law abiding citizen should be able to own as many of any kinds of guns he wants. The moment he stops being law abiding he loses that right and gets sent to prison

it gets no simpler that that therefore it is the least expensive way to handle guns laws

we had that before; why is it so expensive now?

 

[danielpalos]

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line? Like when it comes to open carry, what rules should it have? Should it have no rules? Like some dumb redneck carrying a gun into a bar til 2 AM is okay? Anyone should be allowed to do that?
.

First off, the fact that you are being hostile towards people with a different opinion of your own by calling them gun nuts shows that once again you really are not interested in any kind of serious discussion. Second, what you suggest is already legal here in Nevada and we have had no issues. As a matter of fact, I was out with a buddy of mine a few months ago at a bar and he had a handgun tucked in to a holster in the back of his jeans and he is not a dumb redneck. He happens to be a very successful insurance agent who makes about three quarters of $1 million a year

In Nevada, anyone can carry a weapon anywhere, anytime?

Open carry is legal anywhere except schools and government buildings. Concealed requires a permit

Okay and no problems whatsoever have arisen because of those laws?

Nope. There are reams of stas showing that where open or concealed carry is legal, crime rates are lower.

why do we have gun laws, at all?

 

[whitehall]

Do lefties have any philosophy at all besides their hypocrite convoluted political attitude toward the 2nd Amendment? Case in point, former senator Ted Kennedy's privately hired bodyguard armed with illegal weapons, arrested trying to enter the Senate Office Building. Teddy quietly had the charges dismissed by a federal judge and nobody on the left even raised an eyebrow. The dirty little secret is that every mass shooter in modern history was a left winger or the offspring of left wing (anti 2nd Amendment?) hypocrite democrats.

 

[danielpalos]

Do lefties have any philosophy at all besides their hypocrite convoluted political attitude toward the 2nd Amendment? Case in point, former senator Ted Kennedy's privately hired bodyguard armed with illegal weapons, arrested trying to enter the Senate Office Building. Teddy quietly had the charges dismissed by a federal judge and nobody on the left even raised an eyebrow. The dirty little secret is that every mass shooter in modern history was a left winger or the offspring of left wing (anti 2nd Amendment?) hypocrite democrats.

Our Second Amendment clearly declares that what is necessary to the security of a free State shall not be Infringed.