I propose a new second amendment law

[Jarlaxle]

I'm sorry, I regret to inform you that Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act is the law of the land.

This law established the National Guard as the organized militia of the United States, composed of state National Guard units that could be called up for federal service by the President in times of national emergency. The law also provided for standardized training and equipment for the National Guard, and established a dual state-federal role for the Guard.

So...you do not actually know what the militia means in the Constitution.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You know it's not the guns Rumpole.

You know it's the people who choose to use the guns to kill children. On day you will even want to know why!

For now just work on finding the reason why they choose the black military lookalike?

Because it's there. Because it requires lass care than a wooden stock, is lighter, and usually costs less.

youre right the time for talking is over,,
your decision now is if you are willing to kill me to get your way,, cause I am willing to die to stop you,,,

Of course he is. Many gun-grabbers are perfectly willing to kill you (and your spouse, children, etc.) to enforce their demands.

THE DEFIFNITION OF A KEY WORD IS A MOOT POINT???

bud you should never talk about principles and the constitution again,,,
youre bat shit nuts,,,

No, he is dishonest.

Give it up, PH, you're out of gas. You have no argument. You've been crushed.

I accept your surrender.

It's not "surrender" you twit, he's sick of your filibustering.

It happens often. Prosecutors often fold to public pressure, or prefer charges based upon personal opinions.

Like the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

 

[Donald H]

Because it's there. Because it requires lass care than a wooden stock, is lighter, and usually costs less.

Your agenda is supportive of more mass shootings. Nearly everything you say is 'code' for that. You must be a Christian.

 

[Cougarbear]

The hire of 87K agents, I don't even know if that is true: It's much closer to replacing retirees than adding to the mix.

No, Biden is Not Hiring 87,000 New IRS Agents


Insofar as your 'agents' worry. A few years back, I owed a lot of money to the IRS, and no one with guns came after me, no will they for anyone else. If you are in arrears, you will receive at least 5 letters, a couple of months apart, each a little more intense than the one before, until they send you final one which is fairly scary, but even then, they will give you a few weeks to reply. All they are trying to do, really, is get you to call them (or your attorney) and work things out, which is what I did, and now I'm almost out of arrears. They allowed me to make payments I could afford, over a period of 2 years.

In the article, "At the same time, more than half of the agency’s current employees are eligible for retirement and are expected to leave the agency within the next five years." So, half of 87,000 is 43,500. Why increase their budget $80 billion? Increase it by $40 billion then. If you think 87,000 IRS agents are going to leave, why increase the budget at all. The pay for new agents will be far less than the ones retiring.
In the article, "According to a Treasury Department official, the funds would cover a wide range of positions including IT technicians and taxpayer services support staff, as well as experienced auditors who would be largely tasked with cracking down on corporate and high-income tax evaders. And Biden just said a couple of days ago, they are going after those under $400,000. The liar in chief! " Yep! going after the low and middle income people!
As far as whether these new agents will be carrying guns, the department pulled the statement eluding to this. But, just the fact they wrote it say what's really on their minds. Take away our guns while arming the government even more.

 

[Leo123]

No more or less than you do of law abiding citizens who are required to demonstrate to the DMV that they know how to drive a car and pass a practical, and written, exam. I should think something similar for a device whose sole function is to kill, it would not be unreasonable to require, in a state law, similar such exams, practical, and written, after some study and practice on both, on a supervised shooting range.

Once passed, they only need to upgrade their permits once every four years, to make sure they haven't gotten rusty on their knowledge and skills, given that most people just keep a gun in a drawer, and never use it. Perhaps avid enthusiasts, who demonstrate proficiency in a higher capacity, such as hunters, gun enthusiasts, etc., can get a higher grade license, not requiring renewal as often. Something fair and reasonable could be worked out, I should think. The SCOTUS has ruled that such things are within the scope of Washington DC v Heller, and Bruen v New York Rifle & Pistol association.

Now then, if you raise the 'driving a vehicle is not in the bill of rights' argument, which is the usual rebuttal to my regulatory suggestion, I do believe that the framers NEVER intended for an American citizen's 'rights' to be only those rights in the bill of rights, which is why some of the framers did not want a bill of rights, in the first place. It is precisely why we have the 9th, but, even if driving a vehicle is ruled as a privilege, if you argue that driving a vehicle is not a right protected by the Constitution, and therefore not comparable to gun ownership, understand that while driving a vehicle is not specifically protected by the Constitution, it is still regulated by the government. Similarly, while the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it does not preclude the government from enacting reasonable regulations to ensure public safety..

Additionally, the comparison to driving a vehicle is not based solely on Constitutional rights, but on the fact that both driving and owning a gun have the potential to cause harm to oneself and others if not done responsibly. By requiring permits, licensing, training, and registration for both activities, the government can help mitigate these risks and ensure that only responsible individuals are allowed to participate. We have different vehicle licensing grades, (A, B & C) we could have similar grades for firearms.

In other words, while the specific rights protected by the Constitution may differ between driving and gun ownership, the need for regulation to protect public safety is present in both activities, where the only difference between them is the scope of regulation allowed by Court rulings in cases that impact regulation pertaining to the second amendment.

Regardless, driving a car is not comparable to owning a gun. False comparison.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Your agenda is supportive of more mass shootings. Nearly everything you say is 'code' for that. You must be a Christian.

That is...weapon-grade stupid. It's on the level of a flat-earther, or someone believing he is meeting Elvis and the Easter Bunny on Haley's Comet.

 

[Leo123]

Your agenda is supportive of more mass shootings. Nearly everything you say is 'code' for that. You must be a Christian.

Guns don’t shoot on their own.

 

[Rumpole]

The most popular gun for the immigrant drug gangs in France, Sweden, and other European countries is the fully automatic military rifle.....the AK-47.....and in Sweden they also use lots of hand grenades....

So you don't know what you are talking about.....

Since I didn't mention the above, clearly you do not know what I'm talking about, but feel free to interject yourself into the conversation I was having with Donald H.

And then you have to answer for the 15 million murdered men, women and children in Europe.....murdered in just 6 years....

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Compared to the 2,460,000 gun murders in the U.S. in our entire 246 year history.....

the number of gun murders cannot be accurately traced back to the country's founding, as reliable statistics on violent crime were not consistently kept until the 20th century.

You are an ignorant fool, who doesn't understand even the most basic issues in history, human behavior....

Ad homs are not conducive to productive discourse.

 

[2aguy]

Since I didn't mention the above, clearly you do not know what I'm talking about, but feel free to interject yourself into the conversation I was having with Donald H.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

the number of gun murders cannot be accurately traced back to the country's founding, as reliable statistics on violent crime were not consistently kept until the 20th century.

Ad homs are not conducive to productive discourse.

Please provide evidence for this claim.


Easy....

NAZI GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER



German socialists

By genocide, the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, "euthanasia," starvation, exposure, medical experiments, and terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps, the Nazis murdered from 15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people, most likely 20,946,000 men, women, handicapped, aged, sick, prisoners of war, forced laborers, camp inmates, critics, homosexuals, Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Germans, Czechs, Italians, Poles, French, Ukrainians, and many others. Among them 1,000,000 were children under eighteen years of age.1

And none of these monstrous figures even include civilian and military combat or war-deaths

http://[URL='http://hawaii.edu/powe...]http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM

[/URL]

 

[2aguy]

Since I didn't mention the above, clearly you do not know what I'm talking about, but feel free to interject yourself into the conversation I was having with Donald H.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

the number of gun murders cannot be accurately traced back to the country's founding, as reliable statistics on violent crime were not consistently kept until the 20th century.

Ad homs are not conducive to productive discourse.

the number of gun murders cannot be accurately traced back to the country's founding, as reliable statistics on violent crime were not consistently kept until the 20th century.

Yes....dipshit....I know.....but being the generous guy I am......I took the recent average of about 10,000 gun murders a year.......obviously many more gun murders than in 1777, and fewer than the 19,000 in 2021, since the democrats started destroying local police and releasing violent criminals in 2015.......and I used 10,000 as the average for every year.....giving more gun murders to the anti-gun fanatics on the years when we don't have stats.........

That comes out to about 2,460,000 for our entire 246 year history...............being generous.....

Europe murdered 15 million innocent men, women, and children......in 6 years.....

Entire 246 year history of gun murder in the U.S.......2,460,000 a generous number for your anti-gun side...and it still doesn't come close to the people murdered in countries with extreme gun control...

 

[ralfy]

You don't need a new amendment for that.

 

[Rumpole]

the number of gun murders cannot be accurately traced back to the country's founding, as reliable statistics on violent crime were not consistently kept until the 20th century.

Yes....dipshit....I know.....but being the generous guy I am......I took the recent average of about 10,000 gun murders a year.......obviously many more gun murders than in 1777, and fewer than the 19,000 in 2021, since the democrats started destroying local police and releasing violent criminals in 2015.......and I used 10,000 as the average for every year.....giving more gun murders to the anti-gun fanatics on the years when we don't have stats.........

That comes out to about 2,460,000 for our entire 246 year history...............being generous.....

Europe murdered 15 million innocent men, women, and children......in 6 years.....

Entire 246 year history of gun murder in the U.S.......2,460,000 a generous number for your anti-gun side...and it still doesn't come close to the people murdered in countries with extreme gun control...

Given your abusive and disingenuous language, trafficking in weasel words, etc., I cannot take you seriously.

There are occasions where trading insults with folks is amusing, even fun. But that is only for those who have some creative talent, which, clearly, you have none.

Mediocrity appears to be your indefatigable companion.

On that sour note, we shall part ways.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

 

[2aguy]

Given your abusive and disingenuous language, trafficking in weasel words, etc., I cannot take you seriously.

There are occasions where trading insults with folks is amusing, even fun. But that is only for those who have some creative talent, which, clearly, you have none.

Mediocrity appears to be your indefatigable companion.

On that sour note, we shall part ways.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

Yep….you have no rational arguments for what you demand………so now you skulk off….

 

[Blues Man]

I propose a law (if there isn't one, already, state or federal): If an individual is perscribed one or more psychotropic drugs which,, and it is for more than 7 days, that individual forfeits their right to own firearms until he or she is safely taken off such drugs, and pass a probationary period of 6 months.

Now, I realize the drugs are (I would imagine) supposed to restore an individual to some form of normalcy, but I"m addressing the underlying reason the drug was perscribed and proposing the law as a precautionary measure aligned with public safety, the concern of which is paramount.

Agree or disagree?

Agree in principle, but stipulate the terms? If so, what do you suggest?

Also since I'm not an expert on the subject, I will be happy to listen to the issue of perhaps it depends on the drugs and what it was perscribed for, and adjust the law accordingly, I welcome feedback on that point.

So you want to make everyone's medical records public knowledge?

 

[Jarlaxle]

So you want to make everyone's medical records public knowledge?

Only gun owners.

 

[Rumpole]

So you want to make everyone's medical records public knowledge?

No, but there has to be a way to achieve it. I'll let the experts duke it out.

 

[Batcat]

But why did Americans keep buying up guns to reach that number?

Our forum's 1srelluc may offer his reason why he's buying about another gun a week?

He certainly wants attention to his habit of buying guns! He may also offer an explanation on the reason why the rifle that closely imitates a military weapon is the most popular?

What do these millions of Americans dream of doing with their AR-15's?

Target shooting, hunting and home defense.

The AR-15 is known as the Swiss knife of firearms.

The Captain's Journal » AR-15: The Swiss Army Knife Of Guns

Is The AR-15 The Best Home Defense Weapon?

When it comes to the best home defense weapon, people are always debating handgun vs. shotgun. Except, what if there was another choice? What if there […]

www.springgunsandammo.com

How to Set Up an AR-15 for Hunting

AR15s and AR-10s are ideal rifle for many hunting situations. Here’s how to set one up that’s right for you.

www.realtree.com

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Well, since males are less than 50 percent of the population and nearly 100 percent of all mass shooters are male,

So now you can tell the difference between a man and a woman?

we should start by banning males from owning guns.

what if they identify as a woman?

They are killing people WAAAAAAAY out of proportion to their demographic!

Labeling is to blame for that.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Gosh, I have no idea how only 350 million guns on the streets could possibly have led to so much gun violence!

gun free zones silly

 

[Pete7469]

LMAO, that is the origination of gun control. When Black Panthers starting open carrying in California old Ronald Reagan suddenly became all about gun control. Every black American should have a pistol on their side, and every Hispanic American should have a rifle on a sling over their back and a bandolier running across their chest. Every LGBTQ should be open carry.

There is truth to that. I observed that it was indeed after the Black Panthers started patrolling their own streets, suddenly the 2A was a sacrificial privilege.

I have no problems with people carrying.