Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[Daryl Hunt]

Anti gun nuts tell you that they believe in the right to keep and bear arms on one breath but then the bastards start telling how they want to infringe upon that right in the next breath.

The lying assholes tell you that aren't out to confiscate your firearms but them tell you they think firearms should be banned.

Can't trust the turd brains.

We are coming for your guns. Just got a new shipment of black vans, black stun guns and the stealth chopper is finally out of the shop. We are coming for your guns. Be afraid, be be very afraid.

 

[Oddball]

Wow, when a rwingnutjob can't keep up, make sure you have a Meme handy. It's right up there with holding your hands over your ears and screaming over and over "LaLaLa...I can't her you.......LaLaLa....."

Communism, as personified by Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.: Centrally controlled economies, military dictatorship, propaganda press, societal stratification via political affiliation, brutal police state, and slave labor/re-education camps for dissenters and other "undesirables".

Fascism, as personified by Hitler and Mussolini: Centrally controlled economies, military dictatorship, propaganda press, societal stratification via political affiliation, brutal police state, and slave labor/re-education camps for dissenters and other "undesirables".

Yeah, they're, like, totally different!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

What's funny is you spew all of this nonsense but have no clue of the actual facts.

In all the years of the NFA. There has been but one use of a legally held machine gun to commit a crime, and it was a cop that did it.

So much for machine guns being a hazard.

Sent from my SM-G892A using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Ah, but what about the Criminals, the Criminals....... Doesn't exactly work out on this one does it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

You had a direction to start this OP.

I disagreed with it, but at least you were headed in a viable direction.

Then you lost focus.

Here, maybe this will help.

The more guns, the better.

We can only shoot one at a time, so you are worried about nothing on the number of guns we have.

And you should be glad we have as big and as bad ass weapons as we do.

The 2nd Amendment is, among other things, a hedge against tyranny.

Imagine what could possibly happen to a disarmed -- or a lesser armed or an under armed -- citizenry if a President (Insert name here,) had or was to have an urge to become a real life dictator.

You hate Trump?

Imagine not having lots of bad assed weapons to deter his ambitions if he woke up and wanted to become King.

Imagine not having lots of bad assed weapons to deter the ambitions of a President Hillary Clinton if she somehow succeeded in deposing DJT and soon after being sworn in she woke up and wanted to become Queen.

The 2nd Amendment gives us recourse.

Tell us when human nature becomes antiquated and out of date.

That is when I will give another moments thought to the 2nd Amendment, which exists to protect us from human nature.

Give some people the power to make us all subjects and they will try to do so.

Obama tried it and all he could manage was politicizing every department of the Federal government.

Just think if there had been no 2A!

Remember when he bought billions and billions of rounds of ammo for the Federal government?

He caused a months long shortage on the civilian market for all calibers of ammo.

And it is my belief he must have thought about preparing the govt. to go to war on the patriots who were going to stand up for our rights if he succeeded in trying a full blown power grab.

Liberals are NOTORIOUS for not thinking past their imnediate objective.

It is a built in handicap most of them share.

They only think about the problem of stopping random mass shootings.

But those casualty rates would be dwarfed by the numbers of patriots and Liberals who would be killed trying to regain sovereignty of our government (or help the Usurper in Chief) in case a would-be despot tried to take advantage of our disarmed state by seizing all govt power and becoming a dictator.

A terrible war would break out and millions would die.

Liberals cant imagine a guy like Obama trying anything like that. But they can imagine Trump doing it, I'd bet.

But human nature does not change.

The 2nd Amendment is our last line of defense against dictatorship and should never be made less potent to stop random mass shootings unless we would court a much worse destiny brought on by Liberal short sightedness.

The 2nd Amendment gives us recourse.

You and I consider tyranny differently.

Exactly.

This illustrates the idiocy of the right’s ridiculous, wrongheaded ‘insurrectionist’ dogma.

Absent consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ the notion of ‘overthrowing’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people is completely devoid of merit – it would be illegal, un-Constitutional, and manifest as tyranny itself.

 

[sparky]

Why would any rational person give the government control over their ability to defend themselves? Especially from all powerful governments

have you read the Patriot Act?

When have we had a tyrannical POTUS?

And just how would you define 'tyrannical'.....?

Seems some here as so far off in extremist partisan land they just aren't capable of recognizing anything 'normal'

~S~

Spoke against the Patriot Act on Saturday television news program. Disagree with FISA warrants because I am a conservative. The left loves government control.

well then, there might be some hope for you after all 92.......~S~

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow, when a rwingnutjob can't keep up, make sure you have a Meme handy. It's right up there with holding your hands over your ears and screaming over and over "LaLaLa...I can't her you.......LaLaLa....."

Communism, as personified by Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.: Centrally controlled economies, military dictatorship, propaganda press, societal stratification via political affiliation, brutal police state, and slave labor/re-education camps for dissenters and other "undesirables".

Fascism, as personified by Hitler and Mussolini: Centrally controlled economies, military dictatorship, propaganda press, societal stratification via political affiliation, brutal police state, and slave labor/re-education camps for dissenters and other "undesirables".

Yeah, they're, like, totally different!

What you listed is the last chapter of both. What you didn't list is how they got there. They came from totally different directions. But, in the end, they end up the same place and end up with the same outcome.

 

[Bush92]

Why would any rational person give the government control over their ability to defend themselves? Especially from all powerful governments

have you read the Patriot Act?

When have we had a tyrannical POTUS?

And just how would you define 'tyrannical'.....?

Seems some here as so far off in extremist partisan land they just aren't capable of recognizing anything 'normal'

~S~

Spoke against the Patriot Act on Saturday television news program. Disagree with FISA warrants because I am a conservative. The left loves government control.

well then, there might be some hope for you after all 92.......~S~

I am a Constitutionalist first. How could you misconstrue that?

 

[Oddball]

What you listed is the last chapter of both. What you didn't list is how they got there. They came from totally different directions. But, in the end, they end up the same place and end up with the same outcome.

Form over substance...But that's what you leftist moonbats are all about, so it's easy to note where you drifted off course.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh to be young again.

I remember when I had MY first beer.

You know I’m right.

You have not considered why the 2nd Amendment was created.

How The Second Amendment Prevents Tyranny

The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today.

By Robert Tracinski

How The Second Amendment Works To Prevent Tyranny

Wrong.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to codify an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, not to fight crime, and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’:

‘Justice Scalia, writing in Heller, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/04/the-resurrection-of-second-amendment.html

The Framers did not amend the Constitution with a provision authorizing its destruction.

 

[Oddball]

Oh to be young again.

I remember when I had MY first beer.

You know I’m right.

You have not considered why the 2nd Amendment was created.

How The Second Amendment Prevents Tyranny

The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today.

By Robert Tracinski

How The Second Amendment Works To Prevent Tyranny

Wrong.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to codify an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, not to fight crime, and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’:

‘Justice Scalia, writing in Heller, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/04/the-resurrection-of-second-amendment.html

The Framers did not amend the Constitution with a provision authorizing its destruction.

 

[sakinago]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

This is discussed all the time, just not in your echo chamber. Btw this sword cuts both ways, gun ownership has been rising and gun laws on things like ARs have been reduced, yet gun crime drops. The Swiss are issued full autos and can walk around where they please with it on their shoulder, yet they are one of the safest countries on the planet. Those in your echo chamber have no response to this, which is why you never hear about it. You’re bringing up a topic that has been flushed out thousands of times on this message board, welcome to the party, everyone already left, but there might be some cold pizza left for you.

The Swiss do NOT allow full autos to be taken home. They only allow semi auto and bolt action to be signed out at the time of separation. And then only if you do the right paperwork. What is happening today, more and more are electing not to apply to take those weapons home with them. But there are abosutely NO full auto weapons allowed in a Civilians hands without some really hairy paperwork and background checks as well as Registrations.

Recent legislation that they were basically forced into by the EU. 2010 I believe it was. It was still the safest country then, nothing changed after. So there goes that argument.

 

[leecross]

Oh to be young again.

I remember when I had MY first beer.

You know I’m right.

You have not considered why the 2nd Amendment was created.

How The Second Amendment Prevents Tyranny

The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today.

By Robert Tracinski

How The Second Amendment Works To Prevent Tyranny

Wrong.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to codify an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, not to fight crime, and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’:

‘Justice Scalia, writing in Heller, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/04/the-resurrection-of-second-amendment.html

The Framers did not amend the Constitution with a provision authorizing its destruction.

View attachment 244880

The people in your Arena of Ideas are not very bright.

The idea is that with enough arms in the hands of citizen/patriots, a great Army, even one as powerful as that fielded by our own nation's government, would be deterred.

Every house would require the troops to shoot and kill or be killed or require war crimes to be committed daily by our boys and girls in green camp to clear out a single block and the resistance would be enough to deter an attempted power grab.

Remember, there is a difference between real life and video games.

The government would be unable to maintain power if they tried to make subjects out of us.

And the more brutal their use of power, the greater the resistance would become.

At some point the would-be tyrant would realize he could not win for losing.

 

[Oddball]

huh?

 

[beautress]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

I advocate "Common Sense Gun Regulations" and the State of Colorado is very near to that point. It only has one more to go to reach that and that should happen some time this year. Does that make me a socialists? Does that make me a Communist? Am I advocating that we come and confiscate all your guns?

Well I might advocate confiscating all your guns if you become a liability and direct safety to the public. And then, only your guns, not anyone elses. That is the last piece of law that will go into affect this year. Do the guns laws here keep me from walking in and purchasing a gun in about 15 minutes if I want one? Does it limit me to buying 500 rounds of ammo at a time once a week? Do I need to have special licenses and regulations to own, possess, transport, etc. the guns? Am I required to Register myself for anything other than weapons on the 1934 Firearms Act? The answer is No to all of these. I can have the gun or my choice to protect my home, I can have the gun of my choice for hunting, I can ...... That list goes on and on. You keep telling me that I should feel threatened. Funny, I don't feel threatened. Well, I do feel a little threatened by you so I guess I need to stay armed just in case. Never know when some people with some strange ideas may feel the need to do something really stupid.

Quote: "Well, I do feel a little threatened by you..."​

Daryl, mudwhistle happens to support the US Constitution and is the best of good American men. He is also a gifted defender of Constitutional rights, and he will not allow experimentalists in the DNC destroy the very realistic world we live in. You'll never out-think Mr. mudwhistle, nor realize what a debate truly is if you keep up irrational feelings that lack merit of any kind. Toodles.

 

[beautress]

The 2nd Amendment is, among other things, a hedge against tyranny.

Imagine what could possibly happen to a disarmed -- or a lesser armed or an under armed -- citizenry if a President (Insert name here,) had or was to have an urge to become a real life dictator.

Unless of course the gun owning contingent sides with a tyrant assuming power in this country Lee.....

~S~

Tyrants exist only in the TDS-riddled mind, Sparky. You need a hobby to help you focus on the real world. Ever tried whittling away at a piece of wood rather than a quite civil man who was elected to the the President of the United States in 2016. It really confounded the Soros-funded slacker who ran against him. It is not rocket science to know that President Trump has improved our economy in every way he knew how, so Americans can still have the American dream that the DNC is constantly trying to shatter for those who earned their way through years of hard work and sacrifice to have a good life and security when they retire.

 

[Chuz Life]

huh?

That post was likely intended for cowardly Clayton.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why oh why oh why do you liberals worry so much about what guns law-abiding citizens own? If a law-abiding citizen wants to carry a gun to protect himself, why do you care, much less object?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What you listed is the last chapter of both. What you didn't list is how they got there. They came from totally different directions. But, in the end, they end up the same place and end up with the same outcome.

Form over substance...But that's what you leftist moonbats are all about, so it's easy to note where you drifted off course.

Ah, forget the facts and details. Just make it up as you go. Screw science and history. It just gets in your way anyway.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

This is discussed all the time, just not in your echo chamber. Btw this sword cuts both ways, gun ownership has been rising and gun laws on things like ARs have been reduced, yet gun crime drops. The Swiss are issued full autos and can walk around where they please with it on their shoulder, yet they are one of the safest countries on the planet. Those in your echo chamber have no response to this, which is why you never hear about it. You’re bringing up a topic that has been flushed out thousands of times on this message board, welcome to the party, everyone already left, but there might be some cold pizza left for you.

The Swiss do NOT allow full autos to be taken home. They only allow semi auto and bolt action to be signed out at the time of separation. And then only if you do the right paperwork. What is happening today, more and more are electing not to apply to take those weapons home with them. But there are abosutely NO full auto weapons allowed in a Civilians hands without some really hairy paperwork and background checks as well as Registrations.

Recent legislation that they were basically forced into by the EU. 2010 I believe it was. It was still the safest country then, nothing changed after. So there goes that argument.

You are talking about the Schengen Agreement signed in 2008. But it actually goes back to 1999 under the Amsterdam Treaty that Switzerland is a signatory. But all of these only have to do with Border Crossings, not gun control.

What you are leaving out is that the first 3 months (the only compulsory time period) all weapons trained on and used in the Swiss Military are all semi auto. No full auto or 3 shot burst weapons are allowed. These are the weapons that the separating Swiss that can qualify can take home AFTER they go through the regulation and background check procedure. These days, most don't bother. The number of guns in the Swiss Homes have been decreasing each year. It's been like this for decades. One of the reasons that gun violence has gone down in Switzerland is that the gun does not have the cult status that it does have in the US.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

I advocate "Common Sense Gun Regulations" and the State of Colorado is very near to that point. It only has one more to go to reach that and that should happen some time this year. Does that make me a socialists? Does that make me a Communist? Am I advocating that we come and confiscate all your guns?

Well I might advocate confiscating all your guns if you become a liability and direct safety to the public. And then, only your guns, not anyone elses. That is the last piece of law that will go into affect this year. Do the guns laws here keep me from walking in and purchasing a gun in about 15 minutes if I want one? Does it limit me to buying 500 rounds of ammo at a time once a week? Do I need to have special licenses and regulations to own, possess, transport, etc. the guns? Am I required to Register myself for anything other than weapons on the 1934 Firearms Act? The answer is No to all of these. I can have the gun or my choice to protect my home, I can have the gun of my choice for hunting, I can ...... That list goes on and on. You keep telling me that I should feel threatened. Funny, I don't feel threatened. Well, I do feel a little threatened by you so I guess I need to stay armed just in case. Never know when some people with some strange ideas may feel the need to do something really stupid.

Quote: "Well, I do feel a little threatened by you..."​

Daryl, mudwhistle happens to support the US Constitution and is the best of good American men. He is also a gifted defender of Constitutional rights, and he will not allow experimentalists in the DNC destroy the very realistic world we live in. You'll never out-think Mr. mudwhistle, nor realize what a debate truly is if you keep up irrational feelings that lack merit of any kind. Toodles.

I can tell I won this round. I hit quite a sore spot. Does it make you want to field strip your weapons? Doesn't do a thing for me.