Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[Billy000]

No one in the government EVER will. You just delude yourself into thinking that they want to. It’s part of the fantasy I discussed earlier. You want to feel like a hero one day and you never will be one. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[GWV5903]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

It's okay to admit you're afraid to defend yourself, a law abiding Conservative will defend your weak position...

Go on and deflect your outrage with the law abiding Americans who own guns, one day you'll wake up out of your fantasy world or you won't, no one really cares, it will be a COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE YOU TAKE OUR GUNS!!!

 

[Billy000]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

It's okay to admit you're afraid to defend yourself, a law abiding Conservative will defend your weak position...

Go on and deflect your outrage with the law abiding Americans who own guns, one day you'll wake up out of your fantasy world or you won't, no one really cares, it will be a COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE YOU TAKE OUR GUNS!!!

No one from the government wants to take your guns, you dipshit. You just conflate reasonable regulations of guns with over-turning the 2nd amendment completely. You do it because you’re too stupid to understand nuance I guess. No democrat in office wants to take guns from people who are mentally stable and non-felons. Get it through your skull.

 

[Spare_change]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

It's okay to admit you're afraid to defend yourself, a law abiding Conservative will defend your weak position...

Go on and deflect your outrage with the law abiding Americans who own guns, one day you'll wake up out of your fantasy world or you won't, no one really cares, it will be a COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE YOU TAKE OUR GUNS!!!

No one from the government wants to take your guns, you dipshit. You just conflate reasonable regulations of guns with over-turning the 2nd amendment completely. You do it because you’re too stupid to understand nuance I guess. No democrat in office wants to take guns from people who are mentally stable and non-felons. Get it through your skull.

What you define as reasonable, I define as intrusive, invasive, and restrictive.

Maybe you can tell us, then, why so many Democrat leaders - to include Hillary - have called for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed. (Psst ---- did you see Warren's comments just today?)

 

[Billy000]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

It's okay to admit you're afraid to defend yourself, a law abiding Conservative will defend your weak position...

Go on and deflect your outrage with the law abiding Americans who own guns, one day you'll wake up out of your fantasy world or you won't, no one really cares, it will be a COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE YOU TAKE OUR GUNS!!!

No one from the government wants to take your guns, you dipshit. You just conflate reasonable regulations of guns with over-turning the 2nd amendment completely. You do it because you’re too stupid to understand nuance I guess. No democrat in office wants to take guns from people who are mentally stable and non-felons. Get it through your skull.

What you define as reasonable, I define as intrusive, invasive, and restrictive.

Maybe you can tell us, then, why so many Democrat leaders - to include Hillary - have called for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed. (Psst ---- did you see Warren's comments just today?)

Good god. We both know you can’t find any quote from a democrat that has suggested repeal of the 2nd amendment.

 

[LuckyDuck]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

Having spent a career in the military, I know I can use any one of my firearms against a home invader or, use the one I carry on my person against an armed assailant. No "hero" thoughts needed, just survival thoughts. As to gun control. We have numerous laws on the books already, all that is needed is for law enforcement and the judges to implement them to the maximum instead of "slaps-on-the-wrist" punishments.
As for where I personally draw the line: Walking around urban areas carrying semi-automatic rifles is absurd (if you want to carry such things around your farm, fine, as for those urban areas, a concealed carry permit and pistol is sufficient), RPG's, Claymores, anti-personnel mines, any explosives beyond fireworks, you know, ACTUAL military weapons exceed the line.
As for fully-automatic weapons, they became illegal in 1986 and in order to legally possess one, an individual has to possess a "federal firearms license."
My personal opinion regarding that a**hole in Las Vegas, was that he was there to be a martyr for the anti-gun people. He didn't need all of those firearms with him to commit the carnage he did. Photos show all the magazines he had piled up. He only needed two rifles and those magazines. He brought all those others to make a statement. He wanted to public to see all those weapons in the belief that by seeing that he possessed so many firearms and could kill so many people, that people would revolt against gun ownership.
There are over 300 million firearms legally in the hands of 80+ million private citizens who have not been and are not now a threat to the public. We use them for hunting, sport at the ranges and protection. Beyond that, we are none of your business. However, try to forcibly take them, and we will rebel.

 

[Markle]

I ******* hunt. I hunt. When I lived in Tennessee I ******* hunted. I'm in Canada now. I ******* HUNT MY FOOD.

**** OFF.

You hunt. You live in Canada. They have supermarkets in Canada, don't they? We have a problem here in Yankeeland with gun toting madmen, perhaps you haven't noticed. Some of us yanks have had enough of this gunmania and want to really end that. Repealing the 2nd amendment to the American constitution.

Go for it!

 

[Markle]

No one on page one answered the question?

Where do you draw the line?

There already is a line.

Do you want one like the red line petulant former President Barack Hussein drew in Syria?

 

[Markle]

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European Union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I ******* hunt. I hunt. When I lived in Tennessee I ******* hunted. I'm in Canada now. I ******* HUNT MY FOOD.

**** OFF.

I bet that bump stock and high cap mag make it much easier.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

OP is a ******* jackass.

Educate yourself.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Read the SCOTUS decision on D.C.vs. Heller.

Then make your arguments.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

Educate yourself.

You should take your own advice.
You should read Scalia's opinion.
If you actually had, you would know that the conservative justice outlined very clearly that the 2nd is not unlimited and that additional imits could and would be permissible.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

It is against the law to carry fully automatic weapons without a proper permit that is from the Federal Government.

I am guessing you are one of those that confuse semi-automatic versus fully automatic and believe the shooter in Vegas had fully automatic weapons when he had semi-automatics that he were made to fire like fully automatic weapons.

So why discuss second amendment rights with someone that clearly does not even know you can not carry a fully automatic weapon without first going through a long enduring process with the Federal Government?

Also you should look up State laws before discussing this issue because it is against the law to murder in every state and criminals do not care, so how many more laws do you need to pretend to feel safe in your safe space little snow flake?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I ******* hunt. I hunt. When I lived in Tennessee I ******* hunted. I'm in Canada now. I ******* HUNT MY FOOD.

**** OFF.

You hunt. You live in Canada. They have supermarkets in Canada, don't they? We have a problem here in Yankeeland with gun toting madmen, perhaps you haven't noticed. Some of us yanks have had enough of this gunmania and want to really end that. Repealing the 2nd amendment to the American constitution.

have fun getting it removed.

What do you think is going to happen, should the Second be repealed?

Think everyone is going to load all their firearms in the car, and take them down to the police station and turn them in?

Your post and the logic behind it exposes why Americans are afraid to stand up to gun owners. They will shoot us. We are intimidated by you people. And you don't see that. You can live a perfectly healthy full life with out firearms. And society would be better off without firearms.

As a land owner in rural America please explain how I can live without a firearm?

1. How do you deal with wild boar and dogs?

2. How do you deal with an intruder?

Answer those two questions and explain how the local officer might be forty minutes away if there is a intruder or you have no one to deal with wild boar or wild dogs!?!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I ******* hunt. I hunt. When I lived in Tennessee I ******* hunted. I'm in Canada now. I ******* HUNT MY FOOD.

**** OFF.

You hunt. You live in Canada. They have supermarkets in Canada, don't they? We have a problem here in Yankeeland with gun toting madmen, perhaps you haven't noticed. Some of us yanks have had enough of this gunmania and want to really end that. Repealing the 2nd amendment to the American constitution.

have fun getting it removed.

What do you think is going to happen, should the Second be repealed?

Think everyone is going to load all their firearms in the car, and take them down to the police station and turn them in?

Your post and the logic behind it exposes why Americans are afraid to stand up to gun owners. They will shoot us. We are intimidated by you people. And you don't see that. You can live a perfectly healthy full life with out firearms. And society would be better off without firearms.

That’s crazy talk.

I have been threatened by armed gunmen. A couple of times. And after the fact, all I can think is how much I hate guns. If I had had a gun when these assholes threatened me, I would most certainly be dead now. It wouldn't have mattered. A gun would have made things worse. People DON'T need firearms, and since the mass shootings in Vegas, we don't have a solid determinator to keep guns out of the hands of madmen, there certainly isn't any reason today not to ban guns in the hands of citizens altogether.

Because you hate guns, lack the knowledge of gun ownership and fear your own shadow does not mean I should be deny my Constitutional Right.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Guns are killing innocent people, and they aren't doing much else. So let's get real here.

You can have my gun just as soon as it kills an innocent person. Until then... hands off.

Stop it, for all we know you will be the next mass shooter. End it.

How?

repeal the Second?

might want to look up what it takes to remove it.

(psst, never happen)

The last Amendment to be repeal was the 18th amendment and it took the 21st Amendment to repeal it.

So maybe the anti-gun voter can explain how they will get the Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment through the House, then get a Super Majority vote in the Senate then get it signed by the President and then have a Majority of States to ratify it?

That should be interesting and if someone believe it is as easy as clicking your heels three times and wishing, well think again because most Democrats are not foolish enough to repeal the Second Amendment and they would lose their seats the next time they ran if they even attempted to do it!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

OP is a ******* jackass.

Educate yourself.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Read the SCOTUS decision on D.C.vs. Heller.

Then make your arguments.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

Oh for **** sake. You people really struggle with nuance huh? I never said it was illegal to own a gun nor am I against your right to do it. I’m just pointing out your fallacious reasoning when it comes to any kind of gun control.

What are your specific issues with this decision by SCOTUS?

My issue is common sense gun control laws that prevent guns from getting to the mentally ill.

All Humans are mentally ill, so with that out of the way you want to control those that are allow to own a firearm and those that do not meet your political standard would be deem mentally ill...

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I am an ex-liberal. Truly, now I am a realist. Liberals have this pro gay rights, pro illegal alien delusion, but Conservatives have the same delusions but about Guns. I don't know which is worse, really. And all the pro gun post the came before, or after just reinforce my cynicism. Let's end all this political bullshit and get real.

So let get real and you should understand that you lack the votes in the Senate and very few states would ratify any attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.

So knowing this what will you do?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Do I have to start carrying my nuclear armed ICBM with me everywhere I go?


I wonder if I can hide it under my shirt..........

Is that a banana in your panties or are you just happy to see me!?!

Wait, that is your new nuclear power penis that once it goes off it is the biggest bang anyone will ever see, and the last **** for most...

( I could have resisted but screw it! )

 

[Ringel05]

Do I have to start carrying my nuclear armed ICBM with me everywhere I go?


I wonder if I can hide it under my shirt..........

Is that a banana in your panties or are you just happy to see me!?!

Wait, that is your new nuclear power penis that once it goes off it is the biggest bang anyone will ever see, and the last **** for most...

( I could have resisted but screw it! )

If I kept it stuffed in my pants I'd have women following me everywhere.

Uuummmmm, now there's an idea..........

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So most of you appose getting rid of guns. Because of the second amendment. Not that firearms are necessary or make society a better place. But, instead, you oppose (by use of force with firearms) the repeal of that same amendment. Just because. The echo chamber and stats and feeds and various links don't take away from the bald faced fact guns kill and it's we idiots that that pull the trigger. You can't ban idiocy, you can ban guns. Problem solved.

Tim McVeigh used a truck to kill innocent children with.

9/11/2001 Hijackers used planes to kill innocent people with..

Boston Bombers used pressure cooker bombs...

What is my point?

Anything is a weapon to the insane. Humanity need to own it insanity and stop blaming the tool and put the blame on society itself.

I use my firearm for land protection and you believe it is not needed which tell me you are one of those city folks that never spent much time in the country.

Shotguns and Rifles are part of country living and are not for hunting humans unless they are the dangerous prey that is stalking my land and a threat to my family.

So let get real and understand you have a fear of something that you will not die from...