lets see how the gun control dems handle this

[OKTexas]

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?

What were you shooting, slugs. Even they aren't accurate outside 30 yards. I'll be looking at shots up to 120 yards.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

 

[westwall]

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?

Gun registration has never once prevented a bad guy from getting a gun. Why must you resort to BS in your supposed arguments.

 

[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.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

Do you think people could ever own war ships?? Of course they didn't. These private ships were probably outfitted with canons is all. Good grief!

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

What were you shooting, slugs. Even they aren't accurate outside 30 yards. I'll be looking at shots up to 120 yards.

You claim to be making 120 yd shots through a nite scope? Quit blowing smoke up my ass.

 

[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!

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

Did you read Obama's 2010 study conducted by the CDC? I'm willing to BET that you did not.

 

[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?

Gun registration has never once prevented a bad guy from getting a gun. Why must you resort to BS in your supposed arguments.

When did I mention registration?

 

[Darkwind]

I don't know why they were surprised by the turn out, them dems loves thay free stuff.

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?

You realize that these so-called reasonable restrictions won't actually do anything, don't you?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yet the supreme court has referenced them many times, go figure.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Thugs are normally prohibited from legal gun purchases, or are you labeling innocent people as thugs?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

Do you think people could ever own war ships?? Of course they didn't. These private ships were probably outfitted with canons is all. Good grief!

Too much trouble to look up examples. Instead, why don't you show where those exemptions are in the constitution for fully automatic arms today? Your question was about exemptions to the 2nd in the constitution. (there are none listed there)

 

[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.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

Do you think people could ever own war ships?? Of course they didn't. These private ships were probably outfitted with canons is all. Good grief!

Too much trouble to look up examples. Instead, why don't you show where those exemptions are in the constitution for fully automatic arms today? Your question was about exemptions to the 2nd in the constitution. (there are none listed there)

It was understood back then that arms meant small arms. If you did some research about your rights, you would understand this.

 

[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.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

Do you think people could ever own war ships?? Of course they didn't. These private ships were probably outfitted with canons is all. Good grief!

Too much trouble to look up examples. Instead, why don't you show where those exemptions are in the constitution for fully automatic arms today? Your question was about exemptions to the 2nd in the constitution. (there are none listed there)

Yeah, it didn't include automatic weapons. So . . . as you can see, the government has ALREADY been infringing upon our rights for YEARS, and I suppose you are okay with that? this is why we need to teach the children about their rights and WHY they are precious to us all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't know why they were surprised by the turn out, them dems loves thay free stuff.

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

It’s not proof of anything but the stupidity common to most on the right.

And guns don’t have ‘rights,’ citizens do – and although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

What is or is not reasonable is determined by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, where none of the measures advocated by democrats have been ruled as un-Constitutional.

 

[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?

Did you read Obama's 2010 study conducted by the CDC? I'm willing to BET that you did not.

I'm sure you are willing to bet a lot of things. Just a few posts back you would have bet that the Federalist papers were a legal document with active bearing on our laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't know why they were surprised by the turn out, them dems loves thay free stuff.

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?

You realize that these so-called reasonable restrictions won't actually do anything, don't you?

I realize that is the gun nut's talking point.

 

[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.

Yet the supreme court has referenced them many times, go figure.

The supreme court has also referenced Spider Man. Go figure.

 

[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!

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

Did you read Obama's 2010 study conducted by the CDC? I'm willing to BET that you did not.

I'm sure you are willing to bet a lot of things. Just a few posts back you would have bet that the Federalist papers were a legal document with active bearing on our laws.

They are. Duh. Well . . . did you read the Obama study from 2010? Yes or no.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

Do you think people could ever own war ships?? Of course they didn't. These private ships were probably outfitted with canons is all. Good grief!

The procedure for issuing letters of marque and the issuing authority varied by time and circumstance. In colonial America, for instance, colonial governors issued them in the name of the king. During the American Revolution, first the state legislatures, then both the states and the Continental Congress, then, after ratification of the Constitution, Congress authorized and the President signed letters of marque. A shipowner would send in an application stating the name, description, tonnage, and force (armaments) of the vessel, the name and residence of the owner, and the intended number of crew, and tendered a bond promising strict observance of the country's laws and treaties and of international laws and customs. The commission was granted to the vessel, not to its captain, often for a limited time or specified area, and stated the enemy upon whom attacks were permitted.
For instance, during the Second Barbary War President James Madison authorized the Salem, Mass., brig Grand Turk to cruise against "Algerine vessels, public or private, goods and effects, of or belonging to the Dey of Algiers".[19] (Interestingly, this particular commission was never put to use, as it was issued the same day the treaty was signed ending the U.S. involvement in the war—July 3, 1815.)

Letter of marque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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?

Thugs are normally prohibited from legal gun purchases, or are you labeling innocent people as thugs?

No Thugs are thugs. An individual has no obligation to find out or even care if the person they are selling to is a thug. Without that obligation, lots of innocent people will sell guns to more thugs. As you know, they don't care about the law, but I suggest those innocent people would follow the law forcing the thug to find another source.