Münster vehicle attack...

[P@triot]

Nope, all of those things have been implemented in the past without changing a single word of the 2nd amendment.

Yes my dear...that’s called “violating the U.S. Constitution”. The left does it at least a dozen times per day. Doesn’t make it right or ok.

 

[Kondor3]

Merely to ensure that you generally undertake the responsibility that should come with the exercise of your Right to Bear Arms in modern society.

Then the supposed “modern society” must amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect those desires to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms...

No. need.

You and I are part of the informal Militia of Last Resort in Defense of the Republic.

Owner licensing and firearm registration and related responsibilities are merely "regulating" that "militia" "well"...

As stipulated in the Constitution, as is, without need for further amendment.

... And if the so-called “modern society” is incapable of getting the votes necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution, then they must respect the will of the people.

No need.

Explained above.

 

[P@triot]

So when I use mine for target shooting am I guilty of incorrect firearm usage?

It's practice. Your fire arm wasn't designed for practice.

So in the mind of Happy Joy...taking one’s firearm to the shooting range is “misuse” of said firearm.

 

[P@triot]

Merely to ensure that you generally undertake the responsibility that should come with the exercise of your Right to Bear Arms in modern society.

Then the supposed “modern society” must amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect those desires to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms...

No. need. You and I are part of the informal Militia of Last Resort in Defense of the Republic.

It wouldn’t surprise me if your bat-shit crazy ass was part of some wacko “militia” but I can assure you that I am not a part of a militia. Never have been.

 

[HappyJoy]

Automobile deaths are virtually all the result of accidental misuse of a necessary mode of transportation, while...

They aren’t even remotely “necessary”, snowflake. Just ask the Amish. Why do you feel the need to resort to lying in every post?

Sit down, child, until you've regained your senses...

I hadn't seen Partiot's* reply. The Amish? I'd like to know how the Amish handle a 2 hour round trip commute to the city. Don't bother taking a road trip to the next state, it's going to be a struggle just to get the family out of the county.

 

[Kondor3]

Merely to ensure that you generally undertake the responsibility that should come with the exercise of your Right to Bear Arms in modern society.

Then the supposed “modern society” must amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect those desires to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms...

No. need. You and I are part of the informal Militia of Last Resort in Defense of the Republic.

It wouldn’t surprise me if your bat-shit crazy ass was part of some wacko “militia” but I can assure you that I am not a part of a militia. Never have been.

If you and I are not part of an informal militia of last resort, then, you and I lack the Constitutional basis for bearing arms, eh?

After all, that is the rationale stipulated in the Constitution, for citizens to bear arms, correct?

 

[miketx]

So when I use mine for target shooting am I guilty of incorrect firearm usage?

It's practice. Your fire arm wasn't designed for practice.

So in the mind of Happy Joy...taking one’s firearm to the shooting range is “misuse” of said firearm.

You ever notice how all these "experts" work as hard as they can to show everyone just how ignorant they really are?

 

[HappyJoy]

So when I use mine for target shooting am I guilty of incorrect firearm usage?

It's practice. Your fire arm wasn't designed for practice.

So in the mind of Happy Joy...taking one’s firearm to the shooting range is “misuse” of said firearm.

Of course not, that's retarded.

Guns are designed to kill and taking your gun to the shooting range is merely practice. Sure, hobby too but the design of your gun is something else. I'm no even sure why this is even remotely controversial.

 

[westwall]

If somebody builds a car whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim, then sure I'm all for banning it.

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

No, they are not. They are made to propel a projectile to a target. Tens of billions of rounds are fired every year and a vanishingly small number of those are directed at either people or animals.

 

[P@triot]

If you and I are not part of an informal militia of last resort, then, you and I lack the Constitutional basis for bearing arms, eh?

The only “basis” for a right, snowflake, is to be a U.S. citizen. That’s it. Nothing more. One does not have to be a part of a special group to be afforded the right to free speech. One does not have to be a part of a special group to be afforded the right to freedom of the press. And one does not have to be a part of a special group to be afforded the right to keep and bear arms.

Class dismissed, junior. You may go now.

 

[P@triot]

So when I use mine for target shooting am I guilty of incorrect firearm usage?

It's practice. Your fire arm wasn't designed for practice.

So in the mind of Happy Joy...taking one’s firearm to the shooting range is “misuse” of said firearm.

Of course not, that's retarded.

Well that’s what you just said. Now you’re contradicting yourself.

 

[HappyJoy]

If somebody builds a car whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim, then sure I'm all for banning it.

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

No, they are not. They are made to propel a projectile to a target. Tens of billions of rounds are fired every year and a vanishingly small number of those are directed at either people or animals.

Yes, thankfully. Your firearm is designed to kill just the same.

 

[HappyJoy]

So when I use mine for target shooting am I guilty of incorrect firearm usage?

It's practice. Your fire arm wasn't designed for practice.

So in the mind of Happy Joy...taking one’s firearm to the shooting range is “misuse” of said firearm.

Of course not, that's retarded.

Well that’s what you just said. Now you’re contradicting yourself.

No, you just don't understand other peoples' posts. Should I put a Canadian spin on it for ya', eh?

 

[miketx]

If somebody builds a car whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim, then sure I'm all for banning it.

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

No, they are not. They are made to propel a projectile to a target. Tens of billions of rounds are fired every year and a vanishingly small number of those are directed at either people or animals.

Yes, thankfully. Your firearm is designed to kill just the same.

Is it covered under warranty if it has not met design parameters?

 

[P@triot]

If somebody builds a car whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim, then sure I'm all for banning it.

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

It is illegal to kill. Therefore, if an items sole purpose was to “kill”, it wouldn’t be manufactured.

Also...if a gun’s sole purpose is to “kill”, why aren’t you outraged that all of your law enforcement is carrying firearms? Law enforcement should never kill.

Oops. How stupid do you look right now?

 

[P@triot]

No, you just don't understand other peoples' posts. Should I put a Canadian spin on it for ya', eh?

And now you’re back to claiming you are Canadian! You can’t seem to make up your mind.

 

[westwall]

If somebody builds a car whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim, then sure I'm all for banning it.

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

No, they are not. They are made to propel a projectile to a target. Tens of billions of rounds are fired every year and a vanishingly small number of those are directed at either people or animals.

Yes, thankfully. Your firearm is designed to kill just the same.

No, it isn't. Based on your rational then cars, which are far fewer in number, and kill far more people were designed only to kill. In the USA there are over 300,000,000 firearms, and they kill (through all reasons, legal, and illegal) 30,000 per year. There are 263 million cars in the USA and they kill 36,000+ per year. So, based on numbers alone it is clear that cars are only designed to kill people because they sure do it a hell of a lot more.

 

[P@triot]

Heck if I know...

That is the universal slogan of progressives when discussing firearms. “Heck if I know!”.

But that sure doesn’t stop them from coming up with zillions of policy “ideas” for controlling and/or banning them.

So bizarre to propose legislation ideas for something one knows nothing about. It would be like calling my congressman every day with ideas on how regulate the study, testing, and production of rocket science.

 

[toobfreak]

If the left doesn’t march, petition, lobby, and demand that all automobiles be banned, then they have 0 credibility left.

Three dead as van drives into German crowd

Well, its not like he GUNNED them down. The Left still NEEDS cars to drive to their anti-gun rallies to justify ANY number of murders! But they don't need the guns to justify any number of deaths so guns are a good rallying cry around which to circle the wagons. Otherwise, they would have no reason to get together and meet and be victims in the first place . . . .

 

[HappyJoy]

If somebody builds a car whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim, then sure I'm all for banning it.

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

No, they are not. They are made to propel a projectile to a target. Tens of billions of rounds are fired every year and a vanishingly small number of those are directed at either people or animals.

Yes, thankfully. Your firearm is designed to kill just the same.

No, it isn't. Based on your rational then cars, which are far fewer in number, and kill far more people were designed only to kill. In the USA there are over 300,000,000 firearms, and they kill (through all reasons, legal, and illegal) 30,000 per year. There are 263 million cars in the USA and they kill 1,300,000 per year. So, based on numbers alone it is clear that cars are only designed to kill people because they sure do it a hell of a lot more.

Shocker, your logic is flawed.

More people own cars than guns, it's just that people who own guns own a lot.

Also, even if one does not own a gun more Americans interact with cars whether as a passenger, driver or pedestrian than they encounter guns.

I mean, Jesus Christ people, pull your heads out of your asses and try to make a rational argument. A car is designed for transportation, not to kill.

Guns, are not designed for anything else but to shoot a projectile at a high velocity, not to penetrate a paper target but to cut through a living being.

If you really want to own a gun that is not meant for this purpose I have one option for you: