I was wrong about the 2nd Amendment

[westwall]

the argument that "bad guys will break the law so why have laws" is about as stupid as you can get.

Logically if you believe that...we should have no laws

Gun laws provide a method of punishment and that is all. If laws actually prevented crime there would be no murders, no rapes, no drunk driving etc.

 

[Frannie]

Qualified gun instructor...……………...watch him die

What is YOUR qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives YOU the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

My right to an opinion is guaranteed by the US Constitution

Any other retarded questions

You sound ignorant when you give an opinion of something you have no idea about.

Says the fool who believes that he mills quality firearms but does not have the laser guided templates nor does he know how to rifle a bore

they have been boring rifles for 200 yrs in a ******* barn you ignorant kunt,,,
but then again why would you when you can go buy one already made to spec,,,

and that laser template is for mass production not for quality ,,

you are one ignorant moron

How do you rifle your bore...…………

This is not about them, it's about you

You still haven't answered

 

[westwall]

What is YOUR qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives YOU the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

My right to an opinion is guaranteed by the US Constitution

Any other retarded questions

You sound ignorant when you give an opinion of something you have no idea about.

Says the fool who believes that he mills quality firearms but does not have the laser guided templates nor does he know how to rifle a bore

they have been boring rifles for 200 yrs in a ******* barn you ignorant kunt,,,
but then again why would you when you can go buy one already made to spec,,,

and that laser template is for mass production not for quality ,,

you are one ignorant moron

How do you rifle your bore...…………

This is not about them, it's about you

You still haven't answered

Easy, you buy a button rifling tool assembly for 50 bucks from Brownells.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My right to an opinion is guaranteed by the US Constitution

Any other retarded questions

You sound ignorant when you give an opinion of something you have no idea about.

Says the fool who believes that he mills quality firearms but does not have the laser guided templates nor does he know how to rifle a bore

they have been boring rifles for 200 yrs in a ******* barn you ignorant kunt,,,
but then again why would you when you can go buy one already made to spec,,,

and that laser template is for mass production not for quality ,,

you are one ignorant moron

How do you rifle your bore...…………

This is not about them, it's about you

You still haven't answered

Easy, you buy a button rifling tool assembly for 50 bucks from Brownells.

Or you just buy the barrel already rifled.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The supreme court ruled U.S. vs Miller 1939 that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

 

[Lakhota]

The supreme court ruled U.S. vs Miller 1939 that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

We no longer have militias - except for some deranged Deliverance peckerwoods. We have a standing socialist army.

 

[OKTexas]

I thought it was outdated and we needed to be more strict with assault weapons. I didn’t have the data just what the media told me. Well I am a logical and stats oriented person and stats show I was way off. This brief video will explain why.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. You can bet the commies weren't swayed even a little bit. Welcome to reality.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I thought it was outdated and we needed to be more strict with assault weapons. I didn’t have the data just what the media told me. Well I am a logical and stats oriented person and stats show I was way off. This brief video will explain why.

Amy Swearer is a member of the Heritage Foundation, a far right think tank who's in bed with the NRA.

Please, stop trying to justify military-style weapons as a consumer commodity.

There are already more mass shootings this year than days of the year.

The only other countries that have this level of gun shootings is Yemen and Mexico.

Shut the **** up you clueless *****. The AR was approved for civilian sale a full 5 years before the military generally adopted a select fire version. So it's not a military style weapon, it is a civilian style weapon that was later adopted by the military. That has happened a lot during our history.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is not one 18 year old in the USA who needs an assault weapon unless they are in the military, in which case they are stupid for not going to school

What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

Qualified gun instructor...……………...watch him die

What is YOUR qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives YOU the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

My right to an opinion is guaranteed by the US Constitution

Any other retarded questions

You sound ignorant when you give an opinion of something you have no idea about.

Winner of the most ironic post of the thread award.

 

[westwall]

He's wrong.

 

[westwall]

What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

Qualified gun instructor...……………...watch him die

What is YOUR qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives YOU the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

My right to an opinion is guaranteed by the US Constitution

Any other retarded questions

You sound ignorant when you give an opinion of something you have no idea about.

Winner of the most ironic post of the thread award.

Winner of the pseudo intellectual most moronic post of the thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I thought it was outdated and we needed to be more strict with assault weapons. I didn’t have the data just what the media told me. Well I am a logical and stats oriented person and stats show I was way off. This brief video will explain why.

And you’re still wrong about the Second Amendment, as is Amy Swearer.

Indeed, the issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, given the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, and that for a jurisdiction to ban the possession of AR 15s does not ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Moreover, Ms. Swearer’s ‘argument’ fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – no record has been ‘set straight.’ There is no objective, documented evidence that the AR 15 is a weapon ‘preferable’ for self-defense; in fact, AR 15s are problematic for self-defense given their high velocity chambering, particularly in densely populated areas.

And the notion that owning an AR 15 is ‘justified’ because ‘the government’ is “unable or unwilling” to defend communities from crime is completely devoid of proof or merit, nothing but rightwing demagoguery.

I personally oppose AWBs because they’re unwarranted and ineffective; long guns account for less than 2 percent of overall gun crime and violence – semi-automatic rifles and carbines represent an even smaller percentage. AWBs are therefore needless government overreach and regulation.

Conservatives such as Ms. Swearer need to stop propagating nonsense about there being a ‘need’ or ‘justification’ to possess an AR 15 – they come off sounding ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[westwall]

I thought it was outdated and we needed to be more strict with assault weapons. I didn’t have the data just what the media told me. Well I am a logical and stats oriented person and stats show I was way off. This brief video will explain why.

And you’re still wrong about the Second Amendment, as is Amy Swearer.

Indeed, the issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, given the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, and that for a jurisdiction to ban the possession of AR 15s does not ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Moreover, Ms. Swearer’s ‘argument’ fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – no record has been ‘set straight.’ There is no objective, documented evidence that the AR 15 is a weapon ‘preferable’ for self-defense; in fact, AR 15s are problematic for self-defense given their high velocity chambering, particularly in densely populated areas.

And the notion that owning an AR 15 is ‘justified’ because ‘the government’ is “unable or unwilling” to defend communities from crime is completely devoid of proof or merit, nothing but rightwing demagoguery.

I personally oppose AWBs because they’re unwarranted and ineffective; long guns account for less than 2 percent of overall gun crime and violence – semi-automatic rifles and carbines represent an even smaller percentage. AWBs are therefore needless government overreach and regulation.

Conservatives such as Ms. Swearer need to stop propagating nonsense about there being a ‘need’ or ‘justification’ to possess an AR 15 – they come off sounding ignorant and ridiculous.

And you are still full of shit. You love case law when it supports your infantile beliefs, but US v Miller is case law that blows your crap right out of the water.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

Qualified gun instructor...……………...watch him die

What is YOUR qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives YOU the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

My right to an opinion is guaranteed by the US Constitution

Any other retarded questions

You sound ignorant when you give an opinion of something you have no idea about.

Winner of the most ironic post of the thread award.

OK asshat
What is YOUR qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives YOU the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I thought it was outdated and we needed to be more strict with assault weapons. I didn’t have the data just what the media told me. Well I am a logical and stats oriented person and stats show I was way off. This brief video will explain why.

And you’re still wrong about the Second Amendment, as is Amy Swearer.

Indeed, the issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, given the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, and that for a jurisdiction to ban the possession of AR 15s does not ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Moreover, Ms. Swearer’s ‘argument’ fails as a confirmation bias fallacy – no record has been ‘set straight.’ There is no objective, documented evidence that the AR 15 is a weapon ‘preferable’ for self-defense; in fact, AR 15s are problematic for self-defense given their high velocity chambering, particularly in densely populated areas.

And the notion that owning an AR 15 is ‘justified’ because ‘the government’ is “unable or unwilling” to defend communities from crime is completely devoid of proof or merit, nothing but rightwing demagoguery.

I personally oppose AWBs because they’re unwarranted and ineffective; long guns account for less than 2 percent of overall gun crime and violence – semi-automatic rifles and carbines represent an even smaller percentage. AWBs are therefore needless government overreach and regulation.

Conservatives such as Ms. Swearer need to stop propagating nonsense about there being a ‘need’ or ‘justification’ to possess an AR 15 – they come off sounding ignorant and ridiculous.

The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The supreme court ruled U.S. vs Miller 1939 that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

We no longer have militias - except for some deranged Deliverance peckerwoods. We have a standing socialist army.

You aren't an American citizen has I remember you saying a few years back.
However yes there is a militia that is not connected with the regular Military or national guard. It's called the unorganized Militia which consists of private citizens every able body men and women who are not in the national guard.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Like petulant children throwing a temper-tantrum, conservatives will attempt to ‘justify’ possessing AR 15s for ridiculous ‘reasons’ – such as ‘ineffective’ government, or ‘tyrannical’ government predicated on inane, baseless insurrectionist dogma (government is either ineffective or tyrannical, it can’t be ‘both’).

The fact is that citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; the burden is on government to justify its seeking to limit or restrict citizens’ rights and protected liberties – it is neither the role nor responsibility of citizens to contrive arguments or a rationale as to why they should be allowed to exercise a given right – including the Second Amendment right.

The successful argument in opposition to AWBs will be based on the fact that such bans are ineffective, that there is no objective, documented evidence in support of AWBs, and that AWBs will fail to realize their desire goal.

“But AWBs will stop mass shootings; criminals in mass shootings use AR 15s.”

In order for a law to be just and valid, it must be applied comprehensively and consistently, and it must address a particular problem comprehensively and consistently. To single-out mass shootings as being ‘worse’ than other types of shootings – shootings with handguns, for example – renders AWBs invalid given their ineffectiveness to address overall gun crime and violence.

 

[JoeB131]

I thought it was outdated and we needed to be more strict with assault weapons. I didn’t have the data just what the media told me. Well I am a logical and stats oriented person and stats show I was way off. This brief video will explain why.

Sorry, man, your need to compensate isn't worth the 33K gun deaths and 70K gun injuries we have every year.

Let me know when you actually join a well-regulated militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Like petulant children throwing a temper-tantrum, conservatives will attempt to ‘justify’ possessing AR 15s for ridiculous ‘reasons’ – such as ‘ineffective’ government, or ‘tyrannical’ government predicated on inane, baseless insurrectionist dogma (government is either ineffective or tyrannical, it can’t be ‘both’).

The fact is that citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; the burden is on government to justify its seeking to limit or restrict citizens’ rights and protected liberties – it is neither the role nor responsibility of citizens to contrive arguments or a rationale as to why they should be allowed to exercise a given right – including the Second Amendment right.

The successful argument in opposition to AWBs will be based on the fact that such bans are ineffective, that there is no objective, documented evidence in support of AWBs, and that AWBs will fail to realize their desire goal.

“But AWBs will stop mass shootings; criminals in mass shootings use AR 15s.”

In order for a law to be just and valid, it must be applied comprehensively and consistently, and it must address a particular problem comprehensively and consistently. To single-out mass shootings as being ‘worse’ than other types of shootings – shootings with handguns, for example – renders AWBs invalid given their ineffectiveness to address overall gun crime and violence.

What in the **** are you babbling about? Don't dodge this
The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?