No one is going to take your guns

[MarcATL]

well lets just clarify. Madison was specific the militia was to be self ruled, not ruled by the government. So don't keep trying to redefine his intent the intent that was ratified BTW

wrong marc, you keep assuming the regulation has to be by the government. your argument holds no water

Links?

I'd like to see some evidence that it was referring to self-regulation?

Even if that were the case, which I still want to see evidence, who will be responsible for the self-regulation today? The individual gun owners, the NRA...or some other entity?

 

[RKMBrown]

well lets just clarify. Madison was specific the militia was to be self ruled, not ruled by the government. So don't keep trying to redefine his intent the intent that was ratified BTW

wrong marc, you keep assuming the regulation has to be by the government. your argument holds no water

Links?

I'd like to see some evidence that it was referring to self-regulation?

Even if that were the case, which I still want to see evidence, who will be responsible for the self-regulation today? The individual gun owners, the NRA...or some other entity?

Please tell me you can tell the difference between an adjective and a verb.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well regulated is an adjective in this sentence. The bolded clause is not operative. It is a descriptive clause, aka. prefatory clause.

 

[Spoonman]

well lets just clarify. Madison was specific the militia was to be self ruled, not ruled by the government. So don't keep trying to redefine his intent the intent that was ratified BTW

wrong marc, you keep assuming the regulation has to be by the government. your argument holds no water

Links?

I'd like to see some evidence that it was referring to self-regulation?

Even if that were the case, which I still want to see evidence, who will be responsible for the self-regulation today? The individual gun owners, the NRA...or some other entity?

so what you are saying is you have been making your statements in ignorance. you have never bothered to read any of the supporting documentation that was utilized when developing the constitution and the bill of rights. the collections are quite exrtensive, because you see, they didn't have the luxury off all sitting behind closed doors in washington, they didn't have phones, they didn't have the internet. They were independent business men and farmers who lived in separate states and communicated through written documentation. So it's all there. clearly spelled out for anyone who wants to educate themselves. Start with the Federalist papers, read the annals of congress. the intent, arguments for, arguments against, negotiations, final resolutions, its all there. Educate yourself. because I am quite sure you can provide no links to your interpretation of their intent.

you will also see that the original intent was so the citizens were to be armed to protect themselves from a government that would infringe on their rights. They didn't depose a tyranical government to put another one in place

 

[NoNukes]

Nope. But common law dicates that legally a person is the ward of thier parents until majority is reached. This was in place even when the consitituion was written.

The consituion is age neutral, except when it comes for running for federal office.

And common sense dictates that blind people should not have guns.

why? many blind people enjoy shooting. i know two who are marksmen. now you are being prejudice against the handicapped

How do they see the target? How do they know if anyone is between them and what they are shooting at?

 

[NoNukes]

A blind person is still a US citizen, and thus 100% covered by the bill of rights, unless, like the rest of us, a judge/jury says otherwise.

A 6 year old should not be in possession of a firearm unless under the permission or supervision of thier parent. also a 6 year old has not achived majority, therfore it is up to the parents to decide what they can or cannot do.

Most cases these days when it comes to 6 year olds is about them making a gun shape with thier hands in school, or brining anything remotely looking like a weapon.

Does the Bill of Rights mention age?

is there an age when free speech kicks in? I don't see age mentioned there. how about any of the other rights. is a black man only a free man at a certain age? you liberal idiots can't keep arbitrarily assigning limits as you see fit.

And you right wingers sling insults when something goes over your head. This is why you are so free with the insults.

 

[NoNukes]

And common sense dictates that blind people should not have guns.

And common sense dictates that you Communists should have their teeth kicked in.

But we are a nation of laws, so neither of these will happen.

You are a nation of Internet tough guys. Can it, Mary.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are a nation of Internet tough guys. Can it, Mary.

Are we, Brucie?

We are constrained by laws, so while sheep shaggers may deserve a thrashing, you're be protected here. That's the law working in your favor.

At the same time, Christians will be allowed to practice their faith and citizens will be allowed to defend their lives. That's the law working against your goals.

Guess it's a double edged sword.

 

[Spoonman]

And common sense dictates that blind people should not have guns.

why? many blind people enjoy shooting. i know two who are marksmen. now you are being prejudice against the handicapped

How do they see the target? How do they know if anyone is between them and what they are shooting at?

how do they get back and forth to work? how do they navigate city streets and public transporatation?

 

[Spoonman]

Does the Bill of Rights mention age?

is there an age when free speech kicks in? I don't see age mentioned there. how about any of the other rights. is a black man only a free man at a certain age? you liberal idiots can't keep arbitrarily assigning limits as you see fit.

And you right wingers sling insults when something goes over your head. This is why you are so free with the insults.

got it. so there is no age limit defined for any of the rights and as usual you just elect to pick and choose to suit your agenda. nothing new here

 

[NoNukes]

why? many blind people enjoy shooting. i know two who are marksmen. now you are being prejudice against the handicapped

How do they see the target? How do they know if anyone is between them and what they are shooting at?

how do they get back and forth to work? how do they navigate city streets and public transporatation?

Do they sight the target with a cane or a dog?

 

[NoNukes]

is there an age when free speech kicks in? I don't see age mentioned there. how about any of the other rights. is a black man only a free man at a certain age? you liberal idiots can't keep arbitrarily assigning limits as you see fit.

And you right wingers sling insults when something goes over your head. This is why you are so free with the insults.

got it. so there is no age limit defined for any of the rights and as usual you just elect to pick and choose to suit your agenda. nothing new here

They are citizens protected by the Constitution. Not allowing them to bear arms would be against the 2nd Amendment, unless there was an age stipulation. Unless, everyone does not actually have this right, sort of picking and choosing.

 

[MarcATL]

well lets just clarify. Madison was specific the militia was to be self ruled, not ruled by the government. So don't keep trying to redefine his intent the intent that was ratified BTW

Links?

I'd like to see some evidence that it was referring to self-regulation?

Even if that were the case, which I still want to see evidence, who will be responsible for the self-regulation today? The individual gun owners, the NRA...or some other entity?

Please tell me you can tell the difference between an adjective and a verb.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well regulated is an adjective in this sentence. The bolded clause is not operative. It is a descriptive clause, aka. prefatory clause.

well lets just clarify. Madison was specific the militia was to be self ruled, not ruled by the government. So don't keep trying to redefine his intent the intent that was ratified BTW

wrong marc, you keep assuming the regulation has to be by the government. your argument holds no water

Links?

I'd like to see some evidence that it was referring to self-regulation?

Even if that were the case, which I still want to see evidence, who will be responsible for the self-regulation today? The individual gun owners, the NRA...or some other entity?

so what you are saying is you have been making your statements in ignorance. you have never bothered to read any of the supporting documentation that was utilized when developing the constitution and the bill of rights. the collections are quite exrtensive, because you see, they didn't have the luxury off all sitting behind closed doors in washington, they didn't have phones, they didn't have the internet. They were independent business men and farmers who lived in separate states and communicated through written documentation. So it's all there. clearly spelled out for anyone who wants to educate themselves. Start with the Federalist papers, read the annals of congress. the intent, arguments for, arguments against, negotiations, final resolutions, its all there. Educate yourself. because I am quite sure you can provide no links to your interpretation of their intent.

you will also see that the original intent was so the citizens were to be armed to protect themselves from a government that would infringe on their rights. They didn't depose a tyranical government to put another one in place

Frankly, you guys are just making this crap up.

Have fun with that.

 

[Spoonman]

How do they see the target? How do they know if anyone is between them and what they are shooting at?

how do they get back and forth to work? how do they navigate city streets and public transporatation?

Do they sight the target with a cane or a dog?

does needing assistance disqualify their rights?

 

[Spoonman]

Links?

I'd like to see some evidence that it was referring to self-regulation?

Even if that were the case, which I still want to see evidence, who will be responsible for the self-regulation today? The individual gun owners, the NRA...or some other entity?

Please tell me you can tell the difference between an adjective and a verb.


Well regulated is an adjective in this sentence. The bolded clause is not operative. It is a descriptive clause, aka. prefatory clause.

Links?

I'd like to see some evidence that it was referring to self-regulation?

Even if that were the case, which I still want to see evidence, who will be responsible for the self-regulation today? The individual gun owners, the NRA...or some other entity?

so what you are saying is you have been making your statements in ignorance. you have never bothered to read any of the supporting documentation that was utilized when developing the constitution and the bill of rights. the collections are quite exrtensive, because you see, they didn't have the luxury off all sitting behind closed doors in washington, they didn't have phones, they didn't have the internet. They were independent business men and farmers who lived in separate states and communicated through written documentation. So it's all there. clearly spelled out for anyone who wants to educate themselves. Start with the Federalist papers, read the annals of congress. the intent, arguments for, arguments against, negotiations, final resolutions, its all there. Educate yourself. because I am quite sure you can provide no links to your interpretation of their intent.

you will also see that the original intent was so the citizens were to be armed to protect themselves from a government that would infringe on their rights. They didn't depose a tyranical government to put another one in place

Frankly, you guys are just making this crap up.

Have fun with that.

frankly you have not done your research. which is why we ignore your opinions. because they are just that, opinions

 

[Spoonman]

And you right wingers sling insults when something goes over your head. This is why you are so free with the insults.

got it. so there is no age limit defined for any of the rights and as usual you just elect to pick and choose to suit your agenda. nothing new here

They are citizens protected by the Constitution. Not allowing them to bear arms would be against the 2nd Amendment, unless there was an age stipulation. Unless, everyone does not actually have this right, sort of picking and choosing.

i think that is the question. none of the rights has an age stipulation. but you are trying to apply one only to the 2nd.

 

[theliq]

The Act requires you to register your weapon if it is classified as an assault weapon.

It will later require you to do a back ground check ap, for buying ammo. aka You will get screened just for buying 22 ammo.............

It is creating a Registry..............
It creates a Registry for buying ammo..............

If you have a simple 22 long barrel rifle, and have more than 7 rounds in it, you will be in violation of the law, subject to confiscation, fines, and etc...........

I've seen how the anti-gun folks have implemented bans before. Canada being the prime example..............

Create a National Registry........Find out who owns guns................2nd step.........force all gun owners to have a license to own...............

Then finally, ban all guns and anyone in the registry would be subject to turn in the same..............

It is a step by step plan, being carried out just as it has in other countries............

The anti gun folks, KNOW THIS..............but their PRAVDA MACHINE demands they deny this..................Tell everyone to register............Say no one is going to take your guns..................Using Psycho BS to say, what are you afraid of...........Get LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO THEN REGISTER...............

Then take weapons away through a later TYRANNY OF A TEMP MAJORITY...............Just as Obamacare..............

The left will never relent on this until they get their way...........Which is exactly why they must be fought at ever step................

And that is what this is really about.

The real TYRANNY is the NRA hold over all you gun Merchants...I wonder WHY.

To suck CASH out of YOU MUGS...........and they couldn't give a stuff....if you kill each other,cloaked in deceit of the 2nd Amendment......what you think is FREEDOM.....but the reality is the NRA know you are their PRISONERS.....Guys they've Fcuked you over....and YOUR MINDS AT THE SAME TIME.

"The NRA are in their counting house,counting out the money"
"1.375 Million Slaughtered,those the NRA Bunnies"
"Yeah Man,the NRA KEEP COUNTING OUT THE MONEY,LIVING IN MILK AND HONEY"


THEY JUST LOVE DEATH..........THEY JUST LOVE THE MONEY.........No woman no cry.....it's only your babies that die.

I'm theliq.........

How so.................I own guns, so ******* what..............No one tells me to buy them. I buy what I choose to buy. I'm not out buying a dang arsenal. I have a few guns and that's all I need. Some have more, and some have less.

None of my guns have killed anyone. I have no intent to kill anyone. They are there because I decided to buy them. As an insurance policy if some thug breaks into my house or threatens my family. Or to kill a Rattle Snake in the yard as I live in the country.

Your side has a designated path to eventually take away this Freedom. It is a Step by Step process, and you are on the first step. You only look at those criminals who have the weapons and use them in crimes to JUSTIFY your BS.

In other words you seek to PUNISH THE INNOCENT FOR THE ACTS OF THE GUILTY.

And that ain't my America.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KVmRtEO18k]Lynyrd Skynyrd - That aint my America - YouTube[/ame]

BUT it was for 1.375,000 and I bet their mothers wish it hadn't been.....You are one of the Guilty.

You don't have FREEDOM you fool.....You are a SOUL CAPTIVE,a GUN SOUL CAPTIVE.


Are you Mad?..You say "PUNISH THE INNOCENT" the INNOCENT WERE THE 1,375,000 Americans.

I can never be defeated,because I speak in truth and rights.Come to Paradise and feel the difference...........I went to my Grankinders shool morning service after the recent school shooting.......Little Aussie children cried for your children.......they understood and wept.

You Guys don't Get It and NEVER HAVE.........but 7 to 11 year olds in Australia DO.

All of you are Shameful GUN CAPTIVES.....BUT KEEP COUNTING THE GUN DEATHS as the NRA KEEP COUNTING THE CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH

steve

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you're able to take my gun.

I won't need it any longer.

 

[NoNukes]

how do they get back and forth to work? how do they navigate city streets and public transporatation?

Do they sight the target with a cane or a dog?

does needing assistance disqualify their rights?

Not being able to see should negate their right to own firearms. There is no reason for it.

 

[NoNukes]

got it. so there is no age limit defined for any of the rights and as usual you just elect to pick and choose to suit your agenda. nothing new here

They are citizens protected by the Constitution. Not allowing them to bear arms would be against the 2nd Amendment, unless there was an age stipulation. Unless, everyone does not actually have this right, sort of picking and choosing.

i think that is the question. none of the rights has an age stipulation. but you are trying to apply one only to the 2nd.

I am asking if a 6 year old has that right as a citizen.

 

[OODA_Loop]

They are citizens protected by the Constitution. Not allowing them to bear arms would be against the 2nd Amendment, unless there was an age stipulation. Unless, everyone does not actually have this right, sort of picking and choosing.

i think that is the question. none of the rights has an age stipulation. but you are trying to apply one only to the 2nd.

I am asking if a 6 year old has that right as a citizen.

^ year old has no right until they are age.

Gun laws can prohibit or create conditions for possession by certain persons, they just can't prohibit ownership to those who would otherwise lawfully be allowed.

Can prohibit criminals, those adjudicated mentally incompetent, drug / alcohol abusers.