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

[Rustic]

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?

Much safer for law abiding citizens. The castle law in Florida put a stop to home invasions and car jackings. You can shoot the criminal scumbags dead and you can't be sued by their families either.

Ok but what justifies open carry anytime, anywhere?

The 2nd amendment duh. Who are you to decide what's best for me and my family when it comes to defending ourselves against murderous rapist criminal scum? Go ahead walk through the Chicago ghettos wearing a bunch of gold jewelry unarmed see what that gets you.

So fully automatics should be legal to open carry anywhere, anytime? How about RPG launchers? Should those be legal to own and open carry whereever, whenever?

The country has much bigger fish to fry. Shit for brains
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[Rustic]

My question is where do gun nuts draw the line?
You should have stopped with your first question. If you had then it would have appeared that you wanted to have a discussion. Instead you actually do come off as a "pretentious libtard". You really didn't want a dialog just a space to incoherently rant about "gun nuts" and their "toys" .

lol I'm asking a pretty basic question. Where do you draw the line? Stop pretending this isn't a fair question.

Enforce the current laws, refuse new frivolous ones… Dip shit

 

[Rustic]

Pretty much. If i desire and I want to spend the money I can have my full auto. If I want a cannon I simply search Dixie gun works and click, bang my brand new 16 pounder is on my door step. Your rant is pointless because hood rats arent using class three weapons or cannons. What you are saying is I cant have guns because other people are using them to kill other people which they will continue to do no matter what tweaks are made to the 2nd.All your limits and lines on the 2nd do nothing but make it harder on people who are not thugs.

See, you're confused. I'm not asking what current laws on guns are. I want to know what YOU think the laws should be.

None. Im thnking they got plenty and most are useless. Matter of fact, I would love to have short barrled rifles off the regulated list as well as suppressors. That way I could go back to shooting in my back yard, and if I ever had to blast a hood rat in my house I wouldn't damage my hearing.

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.

Progressives do not get to tell the rest of the country what the gun laws should be, they have no common sense so they have no right to such a thing. They are just a bunch of ******* control freaks With no substance to their thinking… Fact

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

Much safer for law abiding citizens. The castle law in Florida put a stop to home invasions and car jackings. You can shoot the criminal scumbags dead and you can't be sued by their families either.

Ok but what justifies open carry anytime, anywhere?

What is the problem with open carry? As long as the gun owners isn't shooting people, the gun is not harming anyone........

Open carry is justified because we are a free people, and there are criminals in this country......

Why can't we open carry the exact same arms law enforcement open carries to protect themselves from the exact same criminal scum?

 

[Rustic]

None. Im thnking they got plenty and most are useless. Matter of fact, I would love to have short barrled rifles off the regulated list as well as suppressors. That way I could go back to shooting in my back yard, and if I ever had to blast a hood rat in my house I wouldn't damage my hearing.

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

 

[Rustic]

I no longer give a damn... If you want to blow each other away/....Well, that is good for our nation.

So-called gun violence is the least of our worries. dip shit

2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[dannyboys]

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.

Looks like you're doing your own description of yourself nicely.
Please continue.
Now go google the violent gun crime stats in OC states.
Then compare these stats with the violent gun crime stats in places like LIB run inner cities.
You may start with Chicago.

 

[Rustic]

I'm fine with automatic weapons, the current scheme is unconstitutional....

RPGs are not guns....

Well sure but are you suggesting they don't apply to the 2nd amendment?

your thread is about guns, they are not guns.....

I'm aware. I asked you a new question. Try to keep up, pumpkin.

Your question has been answered by Scalia.

I know that you probably cannot read too good so you will likely never find the answer yourself in the Court's published decision, Pumpkin.

That's why I gave you nutshell explanations.

Why is this thread such a struggle with you people? I'm asking for personal opinions on the limits of gun freedom.

You obviously have very little if any common sense, The fact remains less is more when it comes to firearms laws.
This is by far the most armed country on the planet, and look where people are using firearms violently on the list…
You should've learned in grade school people kill people not firearms… Fact
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[dannyboys]

Stupid question dumb ****. That line has already been drawn.

It's a simple question. Where do YOU draw the line? What limits, if any, should the 2nd amendment have?

The ones it already does.

Oh is that so? A 2nd amendment advocate likes what the government has currently ruled about the amendment. Everything went your way huh?

Pretty much. If i desire and I want to spend the money I can have my full auto. If I want a cannon I simply search Dixie gun works and click, bang my brand new 16 pounder is on my door step. Your rant is pointless because hood rats arent using class three weapons or cannons. What you are saying is I cant have guns because other people are using them to kill other people which they will continue to do no matter what tweaks are made to the 2nd.All your limits and lines on the 2nd do nothing but make it harder on people who are not thugs.

See, you're confused. I'm not asking what current laws on guns are. I want to know what YOU think the laws should be.

Are you 'on the rag' or drunk/stoned or just looking for a circular argument? Or all of the above?
I won't waste anymore band width/time reading your asinine posts.
Permanent Ignore!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well sure but are you suggesting they don't apply to the 2nd amendment?

your thread is about guns, they are not guns.....

I'm aware. I asked you a new question. Try to keep up, pumpkin.

Your question has been answered by Scalia.

I know that you probably cannot read too good so you will likely never find the answer yourself in the Court's published decision, Pumpkin.

That's why I gave you nutshell explanations.

Scalia says very clearly in that opinion that as with all rights, the second is not unlimited.

Yes.....we know....you guys take that to mean you can legislate away gun rights as long as BB guns are still legal with strict government supervision........

we already limit gun rights to law abiding citizens...that is all we need......and if you break the law....you go to jail....done...

I take it to mean exactly what it says.
It's you folks who scream and holler your objections no matter what is suggested.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

There will be no such thing as compromise as far as any new control gun legislation is concerned.
A compromise requires an agreement where both sides give and take ... Not an arrangement where one side insists ... And the other gives into their demands.

If you are silly enough to think the degree to which gun owners allow you to infringe on their Constitutionally protected rights is an acceptable compromise ... Go pound sand.

.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Leftards and their gun fetish.

 

[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.

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

 

[BlackSand]

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 ...

.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually I answered most of that question in post #21, I say most because this is the first time in the thread you've used the word "discharge". Are you senile or just trying to move the goal posts?

I guess that's an answer. I mean it's pretty ******* vague though. Whatever the bad guys get? How do you measure that? Break it down. This isn't hard to do since you've thought so extensively on the subject, right?

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

You've got it a bit ass backwards here child. It's on you to justify wanting to limit my rights, I don't have to justify having my rights. At the time the 2nd was written is was perfectly legal to privately own ships of war, then folks like you came along. Figure it out for yourself, I suggest you read the various reports published by the CDC. I've posted one, here's another.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

lol I'm not asking you to justify your rights. I want to know, in detail, how far YOU think your gun freedoms should go. I also never said I was against self defense with gun. You're just proving my premise.

How far should your rights go? I think I should have the right to have anything I think is needed and can afford.

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.

 

[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.

Yeah, that one he got wrong, sawed off shotguns were used very effectively in tunnels in Vietnam.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

.

 

[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.

 

[OKTexas]

Tell that to the 2 million people a year that use them for defense of their lives and property. You must be on a respirator because you're obviously to stupid to breathe.

When you call someone stupid, you should use correct English. My point is that you do not need a gun to defend your life and property. Americans are living in the safest time and place in history.

Yeah, the cops have plenty of crime scene tape and chalk, right? That's all the protection we need according to idiots such as yourself. Crime is going down as gun ownership increases, that should tell you something.

Crime going down has nothing to do with gun ownership.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Has gun ownership in Chicago brought down crime?

I have no idea, is your google broke?

 

[NoNukes]

When you call someone stupid, you should use correct English. My point is that you do not need a gun to defend your life and property. Americans are living in the safest time and place in history.

Yeah, the cops have plenty of crime scene tape and chalk, right? That's all the protection we need according to idiots such as yourself. Crime is going down as gun ownership increases, that should tell you something.

Crime going down has nothing to do with gun ownership.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Has gun ownership in Chicago brought down crime?

I have no idea, is your google broke?

Just as I thought.