Our rights will not be denied!

[Derelict_Drvr]

Go ahead and name right other than the second and I'll give you an example.

If you can't recognize the court taken away rights it's useless to try and debate you. I asked you to point which rights that the right has taken, or tries to take away from you. It is your turn to identify the rights the right are trying to remove.

 

[P@triot]

Should....have these weapons? Should the insane? The incompetent?

Does the U.S. Constitution exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent" from their 2nd Amendment rights? Do is it exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent" from any constitutional rights?

Would weapons in the hands of the insane be a good thing for this nation? Are there restrictions, legally imposed, to gun ownership? Are there some folks who have ceded their rights due to other circumstances?

I asked you first. Does the U.S. Constitution exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent" from their 2nd Amendment rights? Do is it exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent" from any constitutional rights?

 

[P@triot]

Should they have such weapons while they are free, yet plotting their next attack?

Why are they "free"? If you already know they are a terrorist, they should be in prison. You position is bizarre and contradicts itself.

The guilty go to prison. Guilt or innocence are determined by a trial. Otherwise what separates us from the Soviets, or Muslim sin squads?

So if you don't have the evidence to convict them as a terrorist, what grounds do you have to strip them of their constitutional rights as a "terrorist"?!?

 

[Timmy]

Go ahead and name right other than the second and I'll give you an example.

If you can't recognize the court taken away rights it's useless to try and debate you. I asked you to point which rights that the right has taken, or tries to take away from you. It is your turn to identify the rights the right are trying to remove.

The claim was that the left are assaulting our rights . I'll give you the 2nd . But as for our other rights? It's the GOP trying to take them down.

 

[P@triot]

Ha, I love how Americans think their civilian pea shooters are worth anything in battle.

Tell it to the Afghans...

Agreed. They are using the shitty M16 as their service rifle.

Well that's bizarre. Onyx agrees with HereWeGoAgain that Onyx is dead wrong.

 

[P@triot]

Proof that "military tactics" boy here is a moron. A .45 is a brutal round. It becomes really nasty in fully automatic fire

Then how come .45 caliber rounds are not used in a single military service rifle around the globe?

Because they don't have the aerodynamics for accuracy over great distances. But in the event that there was some type of civil war, Americans wouldn't be engaging in a sniper contest with the government.

Anyone proclaiming that a .45 from a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine gun is a "pea shooter" is either 100% ignorant of firearms or are lying for their position. Which one are you?

 

[P@triot]

Just remember while you watch this USMB community - the American people do not own "heavy machine guns" or "AT launchers" or "mortars" or "grenades" or "grenade launchers" or "land mines", etc. so says Onyx...

Oh look, a bunch of old ass machine guns from WW2! But where is everything else.....

Clearly you didn't watch the video. He had EVERY form of military arsenal ever (including all of the weapons you mentioned and a whole lot more) save for a nuclear weapon. Basically you didn't want to see that you were proven wrong.

He literally even had tanks (and not one or two but dozens of them). He had all forms of bombs besides a nuclear.

 

[Nosmo King]

Should....have these weapons? Should the insane? The incompetent?

Does the U.S. Constitution exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent" from their 2nd Amendment rights? Do is it exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent" from any constitutional rights?

Would weapons in the hands of the insane be a good thing for this nation? Are there restrictions, legally imposed, to gun ownership? Are there some folks who have ceded their rights due to other circumstances?

I asked you first. Does the U.S. Constitution exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent" from their 2nd Amendment rights? Do is it exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent" from any constitutional rights?

The insane and the incompetent are often restricted in their constitional rights. How many votes do you think Hindkley cast since 1981? The intellectually incompetent are not mentally equipped with the sense of responsibility and liability a responsible gun owner, you might agree, is necessary for pubic safety.

 

[Nosmo King]

Should they have such weapons while they are free, yet plotting their next attack?

Why are they "free"? If you already know they are a terrorist, they should be in prison. You position is bizarre and contradicts itself.

The guilty go to prison. Guilt or innocence are determined by a trial. Otherwise what separates us from the Soviets, or Muslim sin squads?

So if you don't have the evidence to convict them as a terrorist, what grounds do you have to strip them of their constitutional rights as a "terrorist"?!?

And the same can be said of gang bangers. But should they have access to 'defensive' weapons like the one shown in your video?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Tell it to the Afghans...

Agreed. They are using the shitty M16 as their service rifle.

The Afghan National Forces are built like the US Armed Forces. Quantity over quality.

Are you retarded?

 

[P@triot]

The insane and the incompetent are often restricted in their constitional rights.

Well I didn't ask if they are. I asked if the U.S. Constitution excludes them. There is a monumental difference between something which is actually legal and something which occurs. Women are raped daily in this country - but it's not legal.

So....does the U.S. Constitution exclude "the insane" or "the incompetent"?

 

[P@triot]

Tell it to the Afghans...

Agreed. They are using the shitty M16 as their service rifle.

The Afghan National Forces are built like the US Armed Forces. Quantity over quality.

Are you retarded?

He literally is. Not even kidding.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Go ahead and name right other than the second and I'll give you an example.

If you can't recognize the court taken away rights it's useless to try and debate you. I asked you to point which rights that the right has taken, or tries to take away from you. It is your turn to identify the rights the right are trying to remove.

A majority of those "old ass machine guns" would do gruesome damage to you. Feel free to stand before just one of them on the firing range. They can't do you any harm. They're just old ass machine guns

Moron

Try using those old ass guns against a modernized military force, and you'll get smoked. I can't believe you dipshits are trying to compare weapons developed in the 1930s with those of today.

You really don't have a clue of you are talking about, do you. I have a 1917 Mauser 98 that is capable of putting a modern soldier away. BTW, the army is still using M2 (Ma Deuce) .50 caliber today, it was first introduce during WWI. And a Germany MG-42 from WWII would lay waste to a squad of soldiers at 1300 rounds per minute. A Thompson submachine gun might not penetrate body armor in 1 shot, but it would hit hard enough to put a soldier out of action with deep bruises and broken ribs. It has a heavy subsonic .45 caliber round that does damage (There were a few manufactured as 9mm for civilian sale). More than a new 9mm. It wasn't all that long ago that the military retired the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol (hint: it was introduced in 1911).

Your contention that old ass weapons would be useless against modern weaponry is absurd.

 

[Timmy]

Go ahead and name right other than the second and I'll give you an example.

If you can't recognize the court taken away rights it's useless to try and debate you. I asked you to point which rights that the right has taken, or tries to take away from you. It is your turn to identify the rights the right are trying to remove.

A majority of those "old ass machine guns" would do gruesome damage to you. Feel free to stand before just one of them on the firing range. They can't do you any harm. They're just old ass machine guns

Moron

Try using those old ass guns against a modernized military force, and you'll get smoked. I can't believe you dipshits are trying to compare weapons developed in the 1930s with those of today.

You really don't have a clue of you are talking about, do you. I have a 1917 Mauser 98 that is capable of putting a modern soldier away. BTW, the army is still using M2 (Ma Deuce) .50 caliber today, it was first introduce during WWI. And a Germany MG-42 from WWII would lay waste to a squad of soldiers at 1300 rounds per minute. A Thompson submachine gun might not penetrate body armor in 1 shot, but it would hit hard enough to put a soldier out of action with deep bruises and broken ribs. It has a heavy subsonic .45 caliber round that does damage (There were a few manufactured as 9mm for civilian sale). More than a new 9mm. It wasn't all that long ago that the military retired the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol (hint: it was introduced in 1911).

Your contention that old ass weapons would be useless against modern weaponry is absurd.

Does free speech mean you can slander people ? Scream profanity outside their window at 2:00am?

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Because they don't have the aerodynamics for accuracy over great distances.

The M1 Garande is more accurate at 250-300 yards than the M16, and definitely out does the AK47.

The .45 was never designed for accuracy over distance. it was designed fr durability and to work in the worst conditions. If one found a .45 mashed into the mud, all one had to do is beat against their boot a couple times and pull the trigger. It would still kill what you're firing at.

The Germans used the Mauser 98 sniper rife in WWI & II (I think they used the 8mm version). The 98 action was extremely strong and highly resistant to fouling.

I am not a weapons expert but my gradfather was, and he taught me alot from an early age

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Yup. All you could be arrested for is disturbing the peace, and maybe trespassing if you were on their property. Speech is protected but the Democrats want that to mean anything that another doesn't like should be banned.

Just from your question, you are one that agrees with that, am I right?

 

[Timmy]

Yup. All you could be arrested for is disturbing the peace, and maybe trespassing if you were on their property. Speech is protected but the Democrats want that to mean anything that another doesn't like should be banned.

Just from your question, you are one that agrees with that, am I right?

Yes I am .

It's the GOP trying to curb speech all the time . Every years some GOP hack tries to pass an
Anti flag burning law .

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

That has only come up lately. Do you really think the USSC is going to reverse itself over it? I don't, even with Judge Gorsuch. You believe that it's alright, I don't. But I do know it is legal and that's not going to change soon. But still, that pales in comparison to gun control and other issues the left wants to outlaw or instill.

The left is the Anti-Freedom party in that they want to control nearly everything because they believe they know what's best for everyone. Obamacare is a prime example Fortunately I have had health care through an employer/previous employer for over 40 years and don't start with the taxpayer funded crap. All I have is a large group policy the I pay for with the employer contributing less than 200 dollars paid for though a PRIVATE EMPLOYEE FUNDED retirement association. There are $0 contributed by the employer now that I am a retired government employee.

 

[Onyx]

Are you retarded?

Can you contest an assertion without resorting to personal attacks, or would that require too much intelligence?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Are you retarded?

Can you contest an assertion without resorting to personal attacks, or would that require too much intelligence?

Oh absolutely ....
I must ascertain your mental condition first though.