“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[toobfreak]

No you didn't, any law abiding citizen can apply for the tax stamp and own one.

Well who do you think did limit access to fully automatic weapons?

Nobody limited access. You are not the brightest bulb are you.

You think there is the same access to fully auto weapons as there is to ar15s? Really?

Is there the same access to a 70 foot yacht as there is to a row boat?

We aren't talking about watercraft. Try to stay on subject.

 

[toobfreak]

Which Amendment in the Bill of Rights covers driving cars?

Which amendment in the bill of rights covers buying long rifles without a universal background check, or mandatory registration?

None.

Wrong again Stoopid. The 2nd A says: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of that is too far over your head?

Are you in a militia? Is it well regulated?

Without legal gun owners, there can be no Militia. Get it now?

This is about lowering the numbers. We will never stop this completely but get wmds out of the general public hands.

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

**** the founding fathers. I respect the second amendment but they didn’t expect the slippery slop we hav now.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

Would you allow everyone to own a weapon that could take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? If not, what’s your cut off? How deadly do you want the average joe to be capable of?

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

 

[toobfreak]

Alex Jones Warns Beto: Keep Your Filthy Hands Off Our 2nd Amendment!
Establishment puppet Beto O’Rourke has become the mouthpiece of the victim disarmament lobby and has pledged, quote “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”
LMFAO!! you losers don't even know the half of reality..

The fact you are quoting Alex Jones disqualifies you from serious discussion.

Considering that Alex Jones has 10,000X more credibility than you, that doesn't leave you with much hope.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because it's not constitutional to regulate any firearms, but we tolerate it, for now. We will not tolerate an AR ban. You fuckers may just wake the sleeping giant if you try, and it will be legal for minors to walk the streets with rocket launchers.

Pray your idiot leaders don't attempt it.

.

More like a sleeping pygmy. he vast majority of Americans, including most NRA members want something done. The few NRA gun nuts don't want anything done. You aren't as big as you have been told you are.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

 

[BULLDOG]

The country decided gay people had a right to get married, and we got gay marriage.

The country didn't decide that, quite the opposite. 17 states passed defense of marriage by popular vote. The dictatorship of the Judiciary shit all over the will of the people and dictated law in favor homosexual marriage.

You really are quite stupid.

The country decided weed should be legalized, and weed is being legalized. The country decided we need universal background checks and a ban on large capacity magazines and guns designed for combat. The NRA and gun nuts will whine, but we will achieve that too.

The ONLY way you fascists will get the law you desire is if the dictatorship of the judiciary creates law out of thin air again. Doubtful with the current court.

You can describe it any silly way you want, but just be ready for it to happen.

The free world calls that a TYRANNY and a COUP. The Constitution provides a remedy for that.

View attachment 279910

View attachment 279911

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well who do you think did limit access to fully automatic weapons?

Nobody limited access. You are not the brightest bulb are you.

You think there is the same access to fully auto weapons as there is to ar15s? Really?

Is there the same access to a 70 foot yacht as there is to a row boat?

We aren't talking about watercraft. Try to stay on subject.

You can;t maintain a logical on subject conversation, or support your silly claims, yet you want to call me a troll. Well, that's just funny.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The country didn't decide that, quite the opposite. 17 states passed defense of marriage by popular vote. The dictatorship of the Judiciary shit all over the will of the people and dictated law in favor homosexual marriage.

You really are quite stupid.

The ONLY way you fascists will get the law you desire is if the dictatorship of the judiciary creates law out of thin air again. Doubtful with the current court.

You can describe it any silly way you want, but just be ready for it to happen.

The free world calls that a TYRANNY and a COUP. The Constitution provides a remedy for that.

View attachment 279910

View attachment 279911

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Meh
If the colonist had access to modern rifles they would of certainly picked up an ak or ar
ANd if they had computers and the interwebs some of em would be doing this

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The country didn't decide that, quite the opposite. 17 states passed defense of marriage by popular vote. The dictatorship of the Judiciary shit all over the will of the people and dictated law in favor homosexual marriage.

You really are quite stupid.

The ONLY way you fascists will get the law you desire is if the dictatorship of the judiciary creates law out of thin air again. Doubtful with the current court.

You can describe it any silly way you want, but just be ready for it to happen.

The free world calls that a TYRANNY and a COUP. The Constitution provides a remedy for that.

View attachment 279910

View attachment 279911

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Do you honestly believe that they had no ability whatsoever to envision improvements in weaponry?

It doesn't even ******* matter. It says do not infringe, there should be no infringement whatsoever. recent supreme court cases have indicated that weapons in common use or protected. I don't agree with that finding but it does screw over your argument. If you don't like it, amend. Otherwise shut your ******* commie mouth.

. it's really that simple amend or shut the **** up.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

 

[Flash]

[Q

no you shithead. i just want a society that's safe to send your kids to school in.

The confusion you and other stupid Liberals have is that none of the idiotic gun control laws that you support will accomplish that goal. The same goal that gun owners have by the way.

You don't stop crime by prohibiting law abiding gun owners from enjoying their Constitutional rights.

Very few gun crimes are committed with what you stupid anti gun nuts call "assault" weapons. The great majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap already illegal handguns in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes among filthy minorities, gang bangers, druggies and other assholes that wouldn't adhere to any stupid law you you support.

 

[BULLDOG]

You can describe it any silly way you want, but just be ready for it to happen.

The free world calls that a TYRANNY and a COUP. The Constitution provides a remedy for that.

View attachment 279910

View attachment 279911

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Do you honestly believe that they had no ability whatsoever to envision improvements in weaponry?

It doesn't even ******* matter. It says do not infringe, there should be no infringement whatsoever. recent supreme court cases have indicated that weapons in common use or protected. I don't agree with that finding but it does screw over your argument. If you don't like it, amend. Otherwise shut your ******* commie mouth.

. it's really that simple amend or shut the **** up.

.

You really enjoy using that word, don't you? If you enjoy sounding like a nutbag that much, then go for it.

 

[iceberg]

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

great. we'll start regulating the vote next and the press.

i mean, the left is saying if trump redirects military funds, the left will do the same for their causes so hell, you wanna start regulating "rights" to fit your emotional needs, then its' only fair the right can do the same to match theirs.

but i'm sure for you this is not the same. it never is with you.

 

[BULLDOG]

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

great. we'll start regulating the vote next and the press.

i mean, the left is saying if trump redirects military funds, the left will do the same for their causes so hell, you wanna start regulating "rights" to fit your emotional needs, then its' only fair the right can do the same to match theirs.

but i'm sure for you this is not the same. it never is with you.

Nothing is changing. Regulating guns has always been constitutional. Just because we haven't been doing it as much doesn't mean we can't.

 

[iceberg]

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because it's not constitutional to regulate any firearms, but we tolerate it, for now. We will not tolerate an AR ban. You fuckers may just wake the sleeping giant if you try, and it will be legal for minors to walk the streets with rocket launchers.

Pray your idiot leaders don't attempt it.

.

More like a sleeping pygmy. he vast majority of Americans, including most NRA members want something done. The few NRA gun nuts don't want anything done. You aren't as big as you have been told you are.

and you certainly don't know anything about guns like you pretend to do.

 

[iceberg]

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

great. we'll start regulating the vote next and the press.

i mean, the left is saying if trump redirects military funds, the left will do the same for their causes so hell, you wanna start regulating "rights" to fit your emotional needs, then its' only fair the right can do the same to match theirs.

but i'm sure for you this is not the same. it never is with you.

Nothing is changing. Regulating guns has always been constitutional. Just because we haven't been doing it as much doesn't mean we can't.

OH LOOK - NOT THE SAME!!! (stevie wonder saw your shit coming here) and great. just because we've not regulated voting and "free speech" doesn't mean we can't.

i gotcha boo. let's keep doing "hold my beer" and saying "**** IT" to due process so you can get your way. once we lose due process, do you honestly think things will stop there? we're WAY BEYOND gun control at this point and simply putting ourselves into a bent-over state hoping our ever growing government won't come at me next.

 

[BULLDOG]

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

great. we'll start regulating the vote next and the press.

i mean, the left is saying if trump redirects military funds, the left will do the same for their causes so hell, you wanna start regulating "rights" to fit your emotional needs, then its' only fair the right can do the same to match theirs.

but i'm sure for you this is not the same. it never is with you.

Nothing is changing. Regulating guns has always been constitutional. Just because we haven't been doing it as much doesn't mean we can't.

OH LOOK - NOT THE SAME!!! (stevie wonder saw your shit coming here) and great. just because we've not regulated voting and "free speech" doesn't mean we can't.

i gotcha boo. let's keep doing "hold my beer" and saying "**** IT" to due process so you can get your way. once we lose due process, do you honestly think things will stop there? we're WAY BEYOND gun control at this point and simply putting ourselves into a bent-over state hoping our ever growing government won't come at me next.

I'm not interested in your anal sex fantasy s, even though there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[BULLDOG]

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

great. we'll start regulating the vote next and the press.

i mean, the left is saying if trump redirects military funds, the left will do the same for their causes so hell, you wanna start regulating "rights" to fit your emotional needs, then its' only fair the right can do the same to match theirs.

but i'm sure for you this is not the same. it never is with you.

Doesn't quite work like that dumb ass, even though I can see where a child might think it does.

 

[iceberg]

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

great. we'll start regulating the vote next and the press.

i mean, the left is saying if trump redirects military funds, the left will do the same for their causes so hell, you wanna start regulating "rights" to fit your emotional needs, then its' only fair the right can do the same to match theirs.

but i'm sure for you this is not the same. it never is with you.

Nothing is changing. Regulating guns has always been constitutional. Just because we haven't been doing it as much doesn't mean we can't.

OH LOOK - NOT THE SAME!!! (stevie wonder saw your shit coming here) and great. just because we've not regulated voting and "free speech" doesn't mean we can't.

i gotcha boo. let's keep doing "hold my beer" and saying "**** IT" to due process so you can get your way. once we lose due process, do you honestly think things will stop there? we're WAY BEYOND gun control at this point and simply putting ourselves into a bent-over state hoping our ever growing government won't come at me next.

I'm not interested in your anal sex fantasy s, even though there is nothing wrong with that.

see what i mean? you won't address issues, just barbs. hell yea, i'll get my own "shots" back in since that's the only game you choose to play; but you simply can't/won't talk over the issues themselves.

do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?