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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did they infringe on your rights when the classified machine guns as Title 2 weapons?

Are machineguns , SBRs and SBSs in common use for traditionally legal purposes?

You seem to be suggesting that if they put AR15's on the list that they would be infringing on your rights.

Are machineguns , SBRs and SBSs in common use for traditionally legal purposes?
The answers to these questions address your argument, in toto.

What’s the purpose for an AR15?

Did you avoid my questions?
Because you know to answer them honestly negates your point?
Why yes, yes you did.
Let's try again:
Are machineguns , SBRs and SBSs in common use for traditionally legal purposes?
Are AR15s, et al, in common use for traditionally legal purposes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can have a semi automatic that holds ten rounds. But everyone has to go through a background check.

How do you plan to deal with the dozens of millions of 'assault weapons' and maybe 100 million 20+ round capacity magazines already in private hands?

 

[M14 Shooter]

i wanna see *this* country free from the threat of school shootings dude.

So long as people know how to make guns, we will never be free from the threat of school shootings.

 

[rightwinger]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

 

[rightwinger]

i wanna see *this* country free from the threat of school shootings dude.

So long as people know how to make guns, we will never be free from the threat of school shootings.

OK

Let’s stop producing guns and see what happens

 

[iceberg]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

we are not in said fantasy land just yet, now are we? so you're calling people criminals for breaking laws that don't exist at this time.

btw - have you reported me yet?

 

[M14 Shooter]

how many in all those other gun-controlled countries FREE, DEMOCRATIC AND CAPITALIST COUNTRIES?

Are you about to present a post-hoc fallacy?
Because it sounds like you want to present a post-hoc fallacy.

 

[iceberg]

i wanna see *this* country free from the threat of school shootings dude.

So long as people know how to make guns, we will never be free from the threat of school shootings.

OK

Let’s stop producing guns and see what happens

you do that. stop producing all the guns. let me know how that works for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power.

"Your" wants do not constitute a sound argument for placing unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really it comes down to this. We need to classify AR15's as title 2 weapons.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity you claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You cannot demonstrate the necessity you claim.

They are too dangerous.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

[rightwinger]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

we are not in said fantasy land just yet, now are we? so you're calling people criminals for breaking laws that don't exist at this time.

btw - have you reported me yet?

The thread is about what if AR 15s are banned?

Your trolling has gotten out of hand. You have been reported to the Internet Police

 

[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.

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

OK. How about pointing out which volume in "The Law of the Land" cares how many times you pull the trigger to determine if it is constitutional.

 

[Flash]

[


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.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Go ask Mr Heller and Mr. McDonald if the regulations put in place by the idiot Democrats in DC and Chicago were constitutional.

Infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms is illegal no matter who does it or who condones it. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. I shit you not. Go look it up.

We don't live in a filthy Democracy where the Moon Bat Mob can vote to take away our Liberty. We live in a Constitutional Republic where it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you don't believe me then go look that up also. I ain't shitting you on that either. We only have stupid oppressive gun laws because the people don't have the courage to stand up to the Libtard assholes that pass the laws.

Hopefully that Libtard ***** Ginsburg will kick the bucket soon and Trump can get another Conservative on the Supreme Court and we can start overturning some of these oppressive gun laws that the butt pirates in the Communist states have enacted.

 

[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.

Untrue.

Don't be silly. You think regulation of automatic weapons is an infringement The SC would disagree.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Untrue.

Don't be silly. You think regulation of automatic weapons is an infringement The SC would disagree.

No, actually, they wouldn't...they didn't in Heller....and Miller.

 

[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.

Some regulations are Constitutional; some are not. Those that infringe on the Right to bear arms are not.

Then you should make a sign and stand on the street corner to inform the people. dumb ass.

 

[iceberg]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

we are not in said fantasy land just yet, now are we? so you're calling people criminals for breaking laws that don't exist at this time.

btw - have you reported me yet?

The thread is about what if AR 15s are banned?

Your trolling has gotten out of hand. You have been reported to the Internet Police

great. now go back and look at your own snark post after snark post that has zero to do with "what if" OF WHICH is not the topic of said thread, just what you trolled it into. the topic was beto saying HELL YES WE ARE COMING FOR THEM.

you reported yourself too, i should hope.

 

[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.

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

OK. How about pointing out which volume in "The Law of the Land" cares how many times you pull the trigger to determine if it is constitutional.

there isn't one; which makes this criteria pointless.