lets see how the gun control dems handle this

[HappyJoy]

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

You realize that wanting "reasonable" restrictions always leads, however gradually, to doing away with all guns, don't you? Regardless of the regulators' initial "good intentions".

It's why the Framers put a clause into the Constitution saying that no government can have ANY say over who can own and carry a gun. They knew well the nature of big-govt types who claim to only want "just a few regulations".

Well, government already has a say on 'who' and 'what'.

 

[BULLDOG]

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

We have reasonable restriction as a nation, some states have gone batshit crazy though. Funny how they're all blue states.

Universal background checks and magazine limits. Don't bother with your silly excuses why you don't want them. I've already heard that crap a hundred times. It doesn't hold up.

Are those 2 things mentioned as exceptions in the Constitution?

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

And that has what to do with your 2 exceptions that were never there?

There are already some restrictions on guns. Which of those are mentioned as exceptions in the Constitution?

 

[ChrisL]

We have reasonable restriction as a nation, some states have gone batshit crazy though. Funny how they're all blue states.

Universal background checks and magazine limits. Don't bother with your silly excuses why you don't want them. I've already heard that crap a hundred times. It doesn't hold up.

Are those 2 things mentioned as exceptions in the Constitution?

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

 

[BULLDOG]

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

What you ignore is people have very legitimate uses for those weapons with high capacity magazines. I don't have one right now, but I'm seriously considering buying one next week with a night vision scope. Wild hogs are devastating my property. Imagine trying run a lawn mower though a plowed field, that's what you get with hogs.

You don't need that many shots before reloading for hogs.My 870 has a three round plug, and I do just fine.

Wonder how you'd do with 20-30 angry muslim's wanting to take your head, and rape your wife with THREE SHOTS!

Crazy gun nuts have weird fantasys.

 

[OKTexas]

It is proof that those who don't support gun rights have never been in a situation where they wish they had one.

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

We have reasonable restriction as a nation, some states have gone batshit crazy though. Funny how they're all blue states.

Universal background checks and magazine limits. Don't bother with your silly excuses why you don't want them. I've already heard that crap a hundred times. It doesn't hold up.

Explain how you enforce universal background checks.

How do we enforce any other law?

What a freaking cop out, be specific, how do you enforce universal background checks?

 

[OKTexas]

Universal background checks and magazine limits. Don't bother with your silly excuses why you don't want them. I've already heard that crap a hundred times. It doesn't hold up.

Are those 2 things mentioned as exceptions in the Constitution?

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

Of course it did, the government hired private war ships all the time before we had an adequate Navy.

 

[BULLDOG]

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

You realize that wanting "reasonable" restrictions always leads, however gradually, to doing away with all guns, don't you? Regardless of the regulators' initial "good intentions".

It's why the Framers put a clause into the Constitution saying that no government can have ANY say over who can own and carry a gun. They knew well the nature of big-govt types who claim to only want "just a few regulations".

There have been restrictions on guns in the US going back at least as far as old Tombstone. When have all guns been taken away?

 

[ChrisL]

Are those 2 things mentioned as exceptions in the Constitution?

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

Of course it did, the government hired private war ships all the time before we had an adequate Navy.

I don't think you are correct. The 2A in the BOR never meant for people to own canons and other such things.

 

[ChrisL]

This is what is so effing annoying about this crazy loon asylum. We have either ONE extreme or the other. Get your acts together, will ya?

 

[BULLDOG]

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

What you ignore is people have very legitimate uses for those weapons with high capacity magazines. I don't have one right now, but I'm seriously considering buying one next week with a night vision scope. Wild hogs are devastating my property. Imagine trying run a lawn mower though a plowed field, that's what you get with hogs.

You don't need that many shots before reloading for hogs.My 870 has a three round plug, and I do just fine.

Really, my neighbor caught 15 in one frame on a game camera. Also you're not going to kill a hog at any distance with a shotgun.

Damn. What were all those big fat things I spent all those weekends shooting on my lease?

 

[BULLDOG]

Universal background checks and magazine limits. Don't bother with your silly excuses why you don't want them. I've already heard that crap a hundred times. It doesn't hold up.

Are those 2 things mentioned as exceptions in the Constitution?

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

The federalist papers are not the constitution, and have no bearing on our laws.

 

[ChrisL]

Are those 2 things mentioned as exceptions in the Constitution?

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

The federalist papers are not the constitution, and have no bearing on our laws.

They explain how the constitution came to be and the specific discussions and arguments had over specific rights. They have a huge bearing on our laws.

 

[ChrisL]

AND, to the other poster, if a private ship contracts with the United States or any other government, then they aren't "private" ships anymore. Just like the government with contract with "security forces" like Blackwater. That doesn't mean that private citizens can own war ships or missiles.

 

[BULLDOG]

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

We have reasonable restriction as a nation, some states have gone batshit crazy though. Funny how they're all blue states.

Universal background checks and magazine limits. Don't bother with your silly excuses why you don't want them. I've already heard that crap a hundred times. It doesn't hold up.

Explain how you enforce universal background checks.

How do we enforce any other law?

What a freaking cop out, be specific, how do you enforce universal background checks?

No. Like I said, I'm not playing that silly game with you. Tell me why and how that would be any different than enforcing any other law.

 

[ChrisL]

Just leave our rights be, leftists. Once you allow the government to step all over one right, what's to stop them from doing the same to other rights? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Also, since 70% of criminals and murderers obtain their weapons through ILLEGAL means (big surprise for some of you, I suppose), then your banning things and restricting things doesn't do anything. MURDER is already against the law!

 

[BULLDOG]

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

Of course it did, the government hired private war ships all the time before we had an adequate Navy.

I don't think you are correct. The 2A in the BOR never meant for people to own canons and other such things.

To repeat a question I heard earlier, where are those exceptions listed?

 

[BULLDOG]

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

The federalist papers are not the constitution, and have no bearing on our laws.

They explain how the constitution came to be and the specific discussions and arguments had over specific rights. They have a huge bearing on our laws.

Just like any law or contract written today, discussions and negotiations have no bearing. What is in the completed and signed document is all that counts.

 

[OKTexas]

Grenades and tanks aren't mentioned exceptions either.

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

Of course it did, the government hired private war ships all the time before we had an adequate Navy.

I don't think you are correct. The 2A in the BOR never meant for people to own canons and other such things.

People own cannons, heavy machine guns and other toys like tanks today and they are fully functional.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just leave our rights be, leftists. Once you allow the government to step all over one right, what's to stop them from doing the same to other rights? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Also, since 70% of criminals and murderers obtain their weapons through ILLEGAL means (big surprise for some of you, I suppose), then your banning things and restricting things doesn't do anything. MURDER is already against the law!

Then background checks would limit those legal purchases. Why do you want to make it easier for a thug to get a gun?

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure they are. The word arms in the Constitution refers to "small arms."

But not small arms. Arms were and are any kind of military weapon.

No, small arms. You need to read the accompanying papers, the federalist papers, and then you can better understand. The right to bear arms did not and does not include "ordnance."

Of course it did, the government hired private war ships all the time before we had an adequate Navy.

I don't think you are correct. The 2A in the BOR never meant for people to own canons and other such things.

People own cannons, heavy machine guns and other toys like tanks today and they are fully functional.

Yes, and that ownership is heavily regulated.