Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

[Nosmo King]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

How about the entire constitution? "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,"...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I wouldn't trust modern liberals with anything except maybe some soundbites to repeat.

 

[Contumacious]

This stupidity is a great example of how Liberals go off the reservation when it comes to gun control laws. We should never allow them to participate in any intelligent discussion because they are idiots.



"A special commission set up by Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy after the Newtown shooting is ready to recommend a total ban on the sale and possession of guns capable of holding 10 rounds or more."

"The 16-member Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, established two years ago following the December 2012 Newtown incident in which 20 children and six adults were killed, made its decision to call for the ban at its meeting Friday."

Specifically, it would prohibit both the sale and possession of any firearm capable of holding 10 rounds of more without the provision to grandfather guns that are currently registered under Connecticut’s already strict Assault Weapon’s Ban. This would effect a defacto ban on many guns that escaped registration after owners changed cosmetic features of their firearms. Law enforcement and military would be exempt from this ban.

Sandy Hook Commission Ban guns holding more than 10 rounds no grandfathering VIDEO

Fascists Definition of Gun Control :


Complete and total disarmament

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment; where the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.” (DC v. Heller (2008))

And that's the problem common to you and most others on the ignorant, extreme right: your refusal to accept the fact that there are gun control measures which are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, such as the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The question, therefore, is not 'if' government is authorized by the Constitution to place restrictions of firearms – as government clearly is – but what restrictions are appropriate and Constitutional.

That question is currently being addressed by the courts as Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to evolve; and examples of measures upheld as Constitutional include background checks and restrictions on magazine capacity.

 

[Flash]

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

The purpose of this thread is show just how unreasonable Libtards are when it comes to defining things like "not unlimited".

If you give the filthy ass Libtards any say in the matter they will do stupid things, like pass the SAFE Act in New York that was used to take the firearms away from a veteran that had visited a doctor because of insomnia. .

 

[orogenicman]

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

The Founding Fathers were aware of gun violence in their day but that didn't stop them from understanding at the freedom to keep and bear arms was very important to the American people.

By the way, there were auto loaders available about the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Lewis and Clark took one with them on their Corps of Discovery in 1804.

Really? You are trying to compare an 18th century auto loader with a modern assault rifle? Facepalm, dude.

 

[orogenicman]

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

The purpose of this thread is show just how unreasonable Libtards are when it comes to defining things like "not unlimited".

If you give the filthy ass Libtards any say in the matter they will do stupid things, like pass the SAFE Act in New York that was used to take the firearms away from a veteran that had visited a doctor because of insomnia. .

Someone needs to take an anger management course. In fact, I believe that every gun owner should be required to take an anger management course.

 

[orogenicman]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..

The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.

Rampant feral children are taking the toll.

Remove the kids killing kids, and the suicides, from the numbers, and, there aren't so many gun deaths after all.

Refusal of a sub-culture to raise their kids to respect life is not an excuse to take away a natural right, the right to self-defense.

Are you suggesting that only a certain race or cultural or economic class of people are causing the trouble with guns? Because that would not only be bigoted, it would be factually wrong (unless you want to blame gun owners themselves for the trouble with guns, then I could agree).

 

[orogenicman]

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

That's a failed argument as per Heller

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.

And no doubt, you think you can find a justification in the constitution for allowing the sales, purchase, and use of just about any weapon. Good luck with that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

Ok, buy a flintlock black powder rifle..

Where does the Constitution specify flintlocks, or any other weapon?

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars. They don't need something that goes 60 MPH to get around do they?

That's true. But then, cars are not designed specifically to kill people. Guns are. And the figure is about 36,000, not 50,000. But since you want to compare car deaths with gun deaths, let's do that, shall we?

As you can see, since 1999, while automobile deaths have clearly substantially dropped as a result of drunk driving laws, and car safety design features, at the same time, the number of firearm deaths have clearly risen. Care to comment?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The free speech of the day did not include radio, TV or the Internet so according to you that means we do not have free speech in those medias, correct?

Well I'll be damned. You finally, accidentally got something correct.

On radio and tv you definitely DO NOT have "free" speech. Try calling up your local tv or radio station and tell them you want 30 minutes air time to give a speech. And you want that time to be "free". The managers will laugh you off the phone. Wonder where in the world did the idiot come from.

You ever hear of tv or radio commentators getting fired for saying what was on their minds? No free speech then was there?

Now the internet comes close. As long as your searches stay in certain areas. But you go looking at terrorist web sites and see how long it is before someone at the NSA is taking a look at what you are doing. And if they don't like what you are doing, you won't be "free" for long.

Yea you got something correct and you didn't even mean to. You thought you were making a fine point about "freedom" didn't you?

Ah, yes. The famous liberal ability to conflate freedom as in "lack of government interference" with free as in "without a purchase price." One wonders how much your fabulous ability to be completely obtuse and sound like a jackwagon without embarrassment actually helps you outside of Internet message boards, though.

 

[orogenicman]

no its kinda sad to think that you think banning guns and collecting them will reduce violence......long before now....the shrinks have predicted the outcome of our society....the inner cities being slums overpacked with people would lead to violence....we are in the society that was depicted in 'future shock' and it will only get worse....but banning the rights of people to defend themselves will not change this....in counties where guns are banned..there is still gun violence and there is violence by machete in africa countries...evil will find an outlet...will it not?

now myself ....i am a liberal gun owner....you will never take my guns..simple as that...but i do know i cannot buy enough ammo to defeat the government...those people are out there...but so are you

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

Machete violence and base ball bat battery would take the place of gun violence.

FEAR BOXCUTTERS!!!!

While that might be true, I suspect that far fewer people will die from blade and bat assaults than currently die from gun violence.

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars.

My great-great-great grandpappy was run over by a wagon while hauling logs at 88 year old.

What a shame wagons weren't banned, but for those damned things he might be with us today.

I suspect that your great great great grandpappy, at 88 years of age, probably should have asked for help with those logs. But I see intelligence doesn't run in your family.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Weapons to fire hundreds of rounds in seconds were not in the thought process of the founders. And if they were, they would have restricted ownership of such guns.

Exactly how do you know that?

The reason the Founding Fathers included the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution was to give the people the freedom to protect themselves and to have the strength to hold the government accountable for oppression.

The fact some idiots and criminals occasionally use arms for illegal reasons I don't think would have changed their minds whatsoever.

You gun nutters today are fanatics and unreasonable and the reason I would never give up my guns. I am not worried so much about criminals. It's you fucking gun nutters that concern me.

It sounds like you are the crazy one. Maybe you are the one that should have his firearms taken away before you do something really stupid.

What, you didn't know that there were absolutely no people in existence at the time of the Founding Fathers who they considered stupid or dangerous, and therefore the laws were written without any conception that such people might exist in the future?

It always fascinates me how liberals can see a "living Constitution", which can be twisted and mutated to cover things the actual words contradict on the one hand, and then turn around and see a Constitution restricted only to the exact circumstances and technologies in existence in Revolutionary days on the other . . . depending entirely on what aspect of their agenda they're trying to serve at the moment.

No, wait, hypocrisy isn't fascinating at all. Never mind.

 

[martybegan]

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars. They don't need something that goes 60 MPH to get around do they?

That's true. But then, cars are not designed specifically to kill people. Guns are. And the figure is about 36,000, not 50,000. But since you want to compare car deaths with gun deaths, let's do that, shall we?

As you can see, since 1999, while automobile deaths have clearly substantially dropped as a result of drunk driving laws, and car safety design features, at the same time, the number of firearm deaths have clearly risen. Care to comment?

Does your rise in firearms deaths exceed the increase in US population?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The reason the Founding Fathers included the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution was to give the people the freedom to protect themselves and to have the strength to hold the government accountable for oppression.

And exactly how do you know this. Two can play at that stupid game.

I only see one person "playing", and I actually think you're completely serious about being stupid.

FYI, you can know what the Founding Fathers intended by looking at what they wrote in explanation of their intentions. It's not like they didn't spend a great deal of time and ink on clarifying their positions to people.

Was there a standing army at the time the country was founded?

Irrelevant tangent.

You answer that question first and truthfully and I will explain to you the rest of what you asked.

BTW, the fact there was't a standing army indicates the reason for the militia. And IF you were in the militia (which most men of a certain age were) and the militia was called out, the members needed to bring their own weapons. Cause there was no ready supply of weapons to hand out.

This bullshit about how the citizenry had to stay armed to defeat the new American government is a fantasy written by the NRA to sell more guns. And it has worked real well.

Riiiiight. The people who had just gotten done fighting a Revolution to overthrow an oppressive government certainly wouldn't have ever considered the possibility that their descendants might need to do the same at some point. Why would they?

 

[orogenicman]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

You are grasping at straws. They never excluded innovations for better firearms. That is a lame argument.

The constitution does, in fact, allow for restrictions on the types of weapons allowed. Ask SCOTUS.

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars. They don't need something that goes 60 MPH to get around do they?

That's true. But then, cars are not designed specifically to kill people. Guns are. And the figure is about 36,000, not 50,000. But since you want to compare car deaths with gun deaths, let's do that, shall we?

As you can see, since 1999, while automobile deaths have clearly substantially dropped as a result of drunk driving laws, and car safety design features, at the same time, the number of firearm deaths have clearly risen. Care to comment?

Does your rise in firearms deaths exceed the increase in US population?

Probably not. Does it matter when so many are dying?

 

[The Rabbi]

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

The purpose of this thread is show just how unreasonable Libtards are when it comes to defining things like "not unlimited".

If you give the filthy ass Libtards any say in the matter they will do stupid things, like pass the SAFE Act in New York that was used to take the firearms away from a veteran that had visited a doctor because of insomnia. .

Someone needs to take an anger management course. In fact, I believe that every gun owner should be required to take an anger management course.

I believe we need to insitute an IQ test to post on this site. Of course if we did there would be about 10 of us agreeing with each other.