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

[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.

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

Bullshit, I can walk outside my house now a fire any weapon I have and no one will say a word. Also if I us my firearm in self defense or in the defense of others, the police have to prove I wasn't fully justified, not the other way around.

 

[BlackSand]

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

Then again ... Someone's knowledge of what you have doesn't mean squat ... There is nothing they can do about it unless they violate the Constitution.
Should that be the case ... Then at least you are armed.

I think we have entertained these nit-wits long enough ... And the state where I live has added additional protections in our State Constitution in regards to firearm ownership.
The Progressives should just be thankful the Conservatives haven't figured out they have enough state houses under GOP control to amend the Constitution and strengthen our gun rights for good ... End of discussion.

.

 

[skookerasbil]

who cares about this?

Gun grabbers have never been as irrelevant as now.........in the history of our country btw.

 

[Crixus]

Okay so you're saying it is impossible for a gun control law to be good? Why?

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

lol any gun control laws that get passed are always either weak or watered down. Nothing substantial ever gets passed. What you don't know is that gun control laws in Australia work. Gun violence took a nose dive in that country. Mass shootings, specifically.

Read and learn.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

No as I said It was mass shootings that took a nose dive. People could still legally own guns you turd so of course wide gun violence didn't decline. They banned semi automatic weapons.

Frivolous laws are proven not to work… Fact

But they give the schemendriks this warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[Crixus]

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

Then again ... Someone's knowledge of what you have doesn't mean squat ... There is nothing they can do about it unless they violate the Constitution.
Should that be the case ... Then at least you are armed.

I think we have entertained these nit-wits long enough ... And the state where I live has added additional protections in our State Constitution in regards to firearm ownership.
The Progressives should just be thankful the Conservatives haven't figured out they have enough state houses under GOP control to amend the Constitution and strengthen our gun rights for good ... End of discussion.

.

Really hope the Donald is on board if it gets to his desk.

Congressional 2A Caucus Founder Talks Deregulating Suppressors, National Reciprocity - GunsAmerica Digest

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

because now we have hundreds if not thousands of gun laws and restrictions on the books

 

[OKTexas]

who cares about this?

Gun grabbers have never been as irrelevant as now.........in the history of our country btw.

Vigilance is always required.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Then again ... Someone's knowledge of what you have doesn't mean squat ... There is nothing they can do about it unless they violate the Constitution.
Should that be the case ... Then at least you are armed.

I think we have entertained these nit-wits long enough ... And the state where I live has added additional protections in our State Constitution in regards to firearm ownership.
The Progressives should just be thankful the Conservatives haven't figured out they have enough state houses under GOP control to amend the Constitution and strengthen our gun rights for good ... End of discussion.

.

Really hope the Donald is on board if it gets to his desk.

Congressional 2A Caucus Founder Talks Deregulating Suppressors, National Reciprocity - GunsAmerica Digest

Unconstitutional impediments to exercising the Second Amendment make the country less safe and less secure.

Lack of well regulated militias does that. We don't need a War on Crime, that only increases our Tax burden.

 

[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

Bullshit, I can walk outside my house now a fire any weapon I have and no one will say a word. Also if I us my firearm in self defense or in the defense of others, the police have to prove I wasn't fully justified, not the other way around.

You have to prove your case that you were justified in shooting in self defense. I've read enough about shooting cases to know that it's not innocent until proven guilty when it comes to self defense

And obviously shooting on your property or at a range is different than shooting your gun while in public places. I didn't think I had to specify that because it was so obvious

 

[BlackSand]

Lack of well regulated militias does that. We don't need a War on Crime, that only increases our Tax burden.

Each state has a well regulated militia.

.

 

[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

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

We aren't going to debate the 2nd amendment libtard. Its clear you can whine about it all you want. It clearly states right to own guns SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. WE AREN'T GOING TO DEBATE THIS.

 

[Preacher]

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?

So government can try and control the citizenry.

 

[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.

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

Bullshit, I can walk outside my house now a fire any weapon I have and no one will say a word. Also if I us my firearm in self defense or in the defense of others, the police have to prove I wasn't fully justified, not the other way around.

You have to prove your case that you were justified in shooting in self defense. I've read enough about shooting cases to know that it's not innocent until proven guilty when it comes to self defense

And obviously shooting on your property or at a range is different than shooting your gun while in public places. I didn't think I had to specify that because it was so obvious

What do you tell a cop when he asks why you shot the guy 5 times? Answer, 4 wasn't enough to end the threat and 6 would have been too many. And yes, the burden of proof is always on law enforcement.

 

[danielpalos]

Lack of well regulated militias does that. We don't need a War on Crime, that only increases our Tax burden.

Each state has a well regulated militia.

.

the point is, why are we wasting our Tax monies on a federal, War on Crime?

do we need to ask Kentucky Colonels, for leadership advice.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Bullshit, I can walk outside my house now a fire any weapon I have and no one will say a word. Also if I us my firearm in self defense or in the defense of others, the police have to prove I wasn't fully justified, not the other way around.

You have to prove your case that you were justified in shooting in self defense. I've read enough about shooting cases to know that it's not innocent until proven guilty when it comes to self defense

And obviously shooting on your property or at a range is different than shooting your gun while in public places. I didn't think I had to specify that because it was so obvious

What do you tell a cop when he asks why you shot the guy 5 times? Answer, 4 wasn't enough to end the threat and 6 would have been too many. And yes, the burden of proof is always on law enforcement.

be that cavalier about taking a life and you just make it harder for yourself to prove self defense

 

[danielpalos]

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

Bullshit, I can walk outside my house now a fire any weapon I have and no one will say a word. Also if I us my firearm in self defense or in the defense of others, the police have to prove I wasn't fully justified, not the other way around.

You have to prove your case that you were justified in shooting in self defense. I've read enough about shooting cases to know that it's not innocent until proven guilty when it comes to self defense

And obviously shooting on your property or at a range is different than shooting your gun while in public places. I didn't think I had to specify that because it was so obvious

What do you tell a cop when he asks why you shot the guy 5 times? Answer, 4 wasn't enough to end the threat and 6 would have been too many. And yes, the burden of proof is always on law enforcement.

be that cavalier about taking a life and you just make it harder for yourself to prove self defense

well regulated militia don't have that problem. the burden of proof, is Always on infidels, protestants, and renegades to our supreme law of the land.

Only, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Bullshit, I can walk outside my house now a fire any weapon I have and no one will say a word. Also if I us my firearm in self defense or in the defense of others, the police have to prove I wasn't fully justified, not the other way around.

You have to prove your case that you were justified in shooting in self defense. I've read enough about shooting cases to know that it's not innocent until proven guilty when it comes to self defense

And obviously shooting on your property or at a range is different than shooting your gun while in public places. I didn't think I had to specify that because it was so obvious

What do you tell a cop when he asks why you shot the guy 5 times? Answer, 4 wasn't enough to end the threat and 6 would have been too many. And yes, the burden of proof is always on law enforcement.

be that cavalier about taking a life and you just make it harder for yourself to prove self defense

well regulated militia don't have that problem. the burden of proof, is Always on infidels, protestants, and renegades to our supreme law of the land.

Only, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

you might want to look up what "well regulated" meant in the vernacular of the 18th century

It did not mean government controlled and the keeping and bearing of arms is the peoples' right whether or not they bear arms for the country

 

[danielpalos]

Bullshit, I can walk outside my house now a fire any weapon I have and no one will say a word. Also if I us my firearm in self defense or in the defense of others, the police have to prove I wasn't fully justified, not the other way around.

You have to prove your case that you were justified in shooting in self defense. I've read enough about shooting cases to know that it's not innocent until proven guilty when it comes to self defense

And obviously shooting on your property or at a range is different than shooting your gun while in public places. I didn't think I had to specify that because it was so obvious

What do you tell a cop when he asks why you shot the guy 5 times? Answer, 4 wasn't enough to end the threat and 6 would have been too many. And yes, the burden of proof is always on law enforcement.

be that cavalier about taking a life and you just make it harder for yourself to prove self defense

well regulated militia don't have that problem. the burden of proof, is Always on infidels, protestants, and renegades to our supreme law of the land.

Only, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

you might want to look up what "well regulated" meant in the vernacular of the 18th century

It did not mean government controlled and the keeping and bearing of arms is the peoples' right whether or not they bear arms for the country

i don't have to; i don't appeal to ignorance of the law, by custom and habit, until it is indistinguishable from a moral, like the right wing.

Well regulated means whatever our federal Congress prescribes it to mean. It is in Article 1, Section 8. Only the fantastical right wing, appeals to ignorance of it.

 

[Edgetho]

Guns = Good

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have to prove your case that you were justified in shooting in self defense. I've read enough about shooting cases to know that it's not innocent until proven guilty when it comes to self defense

And obviously shooting on your property or at a range is different than shooting your gun while in public places. I didn't think I had to specify that because it was so obvious

What do you tell a cop when he asks why you shot the guy 5 times? Answer, 4 wasn't enough to end the threat and 6 would have been too many. And yes, the burden of proof is always on law enforcement.

be that cavalier about taking a life and you just make it harder for yourself to prove self defense

well regulated militia don't have that problem. the burden of proof, is Always on infidels, protestants, and renegades to our supreme law of the land.

Only, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

you might want to look up what "well regulated" meant in the vernacular of the 18th century

It did not mean government controlled and the keeping and bearing of arms is the peoples' right whether or not they bear arms for the country

i don't have to; i don't appeal to ignorance of the law, by custom and habit, until it is indistinguishable from a moral, like the right wing.

Well regulated means whatever our federal Congress prescribes it to mean. It is in Article 1, Section 8. Only the fantastical right wing, appeals to ignorance of it.

Article one has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment