Perfect example for 2nd amendment rights.

[RetiredGySgt]

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

I did say that
You just didn't understand it

And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

 

[2aguy]

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

Westwall had an idea in a thread a couple days ago....he said it can already be done...a toll free number where you run the buyers name and drivers license number.....they tell you if they have felony convictions or outstanding warrants....

Done....

No records, no registration, and it costs nothing, and is easy and doesn't target law abiding gun owners....

I’m fine with a quick and easy process. How do you feel about a waiting period to help reduce impulse/emotional buys which could be followed by crimes.

Waiting periods do nothing....and are either Security Theater or just a way to annoy law abiding gun owners...

Criminals don't care...their straw buyer will get the gun anyway.

Mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, knowing that, how does a waiting period achieve anything?

And suicide.....Japan, China, Korea have almost absolute gun control and higher suicide rates than we do...so guns are not the issue in suicide so waiting periods don't effect those either...

Japan is a completely different country/society so that example is apples and oranges. Waiting periods will have no effect on shooters that plan their attacks or have straw buyers. Is it your belief that 100% of murders committed by these methodical criminals?

No...we were talking mass shooters....... the ones who aren't ticked off at a boss, the ones who have made plans, those are the ones who take months to years to plan their attacks.

Japan shows that long prison sentences do stop even hardened criminals from using guns......the problem here is that gun criminals get very short sentences, we had gun criminals here in Chicago get diverted from prison into boot camps and spend less than 3 years in prison......3 of them got out and shot up a basketball court filled with rival teenagers....

The only thing that will stop criminals from using guns, except for that tiny minority, would be long prison sentences....and it would have the benefit of keeping a killer off the streets for 30 years.

 

[2aguy]

A huge SO WHAT? So the theory is that someone hell bent on murder, the worst possible thing a human can do to another human, will go to a gun shop to buy the ONLY TOOL he could possibly use to MURDER?

See the problem to start with?

Somebody hell bent on murder is likely going to achieve it one way or another. In other cases you might have somebody going through an emotional episode. Could be a domestic altercation, could be a firing from the work place, maybe a spouse was found cheating, or their dog just died who knows. But if a person is in an emotional state and wants to inflict harm on themself or another then a gun is the most efficient and destructive tool to use so doing something to prevent emotional purchases could prevent death. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a waiting period, that’s just one idea. The point is to do our best to make sure people who buy and own weapons are responsible, law abiding citizens and of sound mind. Can we at least agree on that last point?

Sure, we should try to stop felons and the mentally ill from getting guns. and we already have all the processes in place to do this, no new ones are needed. What do we need? We need the police to follow through and actually apply the ones we already have.

We do not need to limit access to guns by law abiding people based on the extremely rare mass public shooting. In fact, the thing driving these mass public shootings are the democrat gun free zones we have created which make sure that those emotionally disturbed people you mention, have an easy, unarmed target.

Since all research shows that armed responses to mass shooters drives them away and stops them when they happen, we should focus on getting rid of democrat gun free zones.

And to this point...nothing proposed achieves what you want. Not raising the age to buy rifles, magazine limits or waiting periods.

You are a stats guy. Tell me. If a law or regulation did prevent somebody from getting a gun, or if it did prevent a murder, or if it did reduce casualties in a shooting, how would that get measured?

The CDC and the FBI keep stats on that. Go To the FBI homicide table, or the CDC WISQARS site.....for actual murder rates....

Stopping a murder.....there are about a dozen studies that look at defensive gun use...the most famous was by Gary Kleck, and he found Americans use their guns over 1 million to 2.5 million times a year.....then bill clinton had his Department of Justice try to refute his findings, they did their own study and found the number at about 1,500,000 times a year...those are just defensive gun uses....so out of those you would have a percentage of lives actually saved. There are some people who have tried to find that number ......but it isn't as accurate because most of the time when a victim shows or draws a gun, the criminal runs away......they only have to shoot really dumb criminals about 230 times a year.....

I’m not talking about defensive gun use. I’m talking about somebody who doesn’t use a gun because they couldn’t get one.

We have those stories.....

Here is one in particular..

'No one helped her': NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit

Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days.

Bowne, 39, had a restraining order against Eitel when he killed her in her driveway last Wednesday, but she was still waiting for Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check to approve the gun permit she had applied for on April 21. Tragically, she had gone to the township police department just two days before her death to check on the status of her languishing application. In another indication of her fear of Eitel, Bowne had recently installed surveillance cameras around her home, and the equipment recorded the 45-year-old ex-con attacking her as she arrived home and got out of her car.

 

[2aguy]

No giving a shit is not an answer?

What’s no giving a shit? Are you trying to say that you don’t care if machine guns are regulated? Come on man, use your words

At this point, what difference does it make if the machine gun is regulated or not. We the People cannot get them unless we have a legal means to purchase, or are criminal like Eric Holder and get them from the DOJ..

It matters because it goes to the principle behind the law and our governments right to regulate weapons. Why can’t you just answer a simple question?

Did the federal government have a compelling need to severely limit public ownership of automatic weapons? I don't think so, but I was not around when it happened, and I don't believe there was any organized opposition to doing so, then or now. Water under the bridge.

Does the federal government have a compelling need to limit public ownership of semi-automatic weapons, or any sort? None has been demonstrated, so far.

Does desire of the people count as compelling? Im not saying by any means that the majority of Americans want to ban ARs but if they did and it was voted on then would you accept it?

No.....I wouldn't because you don't get to vote away Civil Rights. There is a reason owning and carrying guns is in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and why it is so hard to change the Constitution....so that momentary emotion doesn't do something in haste, that will cause great suffering later......

The Germans in the 1920s didn't think it was a problem turning in their World War 1 military rifles and registering their hunting rifles.....20 years later, those registration lists were used to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the German Socialists.....

Do you think the German people thought, in the 1920s that 20 years in the future their country would march 12 million European men, women and children into gas chambers? Keep in mind that Germany was a modern nation state, with the rule of law, modern universities, democratic processes, working courts........and no one saw it coming...

 

[Pop23]

A huge SO WHAT? So the theory is that someone hell bent on murder, the worst possible thing a human can do to another human, will go to a gun shop to buy the ONLY TOOL he could possibly use to MURDER?

See the problem to start with?

Somebody hell bent on murder is likely going to achieve it one way or another. In other cases you might have somebody going through an emotional episode. Could be a domestic altercation, could be a firing from the work place, maybe a spouse was found cheating, or their dog just died who knows. But if a person is in an emotional state and wants to inflict harm on themself or another then a gun is the most efficient and destructive tool to use so doing something to prevent emotional purchases could prevent death. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a waiting period, that’s just one idea. The point is to do our best to make sure people who buy and own weapons are responsible, law abiding citizens and of sound mind. Can we at least agree on that last point?

Sure, we should try to stop felons and the mentally ill from getting guns. and we already have all the processes in place to do this, no new ones are needed. What do we need? We need the police to follow through and actually apply the ones we already have.

We do not need to limit access to guns by law abiding people based on the extremely rare mass public shooting. In fact, the thing driving these mass public shootings are the democrat gun free zones we have created which make sure that those emotionally disturbed people you mention, have an easy, unarmed target.

Since all research shows that armed responses to mass shooters drives them away and stops them when they happen, we should focus on getting rid of democrat gun free zones.

And to this point...nothing proposed achieves what you want. Not raising the age to buy rifles, magazine limits or waiting periods.

You are a stats guy. Tell me. If a law or regulation did prevent somebody from getting a gun, or if it did prevent a murder, or if it did reduce casualties in a shooting, how would that get measured?

Proving a negative is impossible.

Is this the new game?

It’s not a game but it is valid to this discussion. I actually appreciate it when people show stats like 2aguy does, however the purpose of gun regulations is prevention which as you just noted, is extremely hard, if not impossible, to show

I get that, but we are having this conversation because of the school shooting that happened a month ago.

People understand why the murder rate in some Cities are what they are. Longer Jail sentences will at least get them off the street, but there is a difficult social issue, one that I've written about at some length that needs addressed long before we regulate guns any further.

We must be able to protect self while these issues are being dealt with.

 

[Slade3200]

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

I did say that
You just didn't understand it

And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

 

[Slade3200]

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

Westwall had an idea in a thread a couple days ago....he said it can already be done...a toll free number where you run the buyers name and drivers license number.....they tell you if they have felony convictions or outstanding warrants....

Done....

No records, no registration, and it costs nothing, and is easy and doesn't target law abiding gun owners....

I’m fine with a quick and easy process. How do you feel about a waiting period to help reduce impulse/emotional buys which could be followed by crimes.

Waiting periods do nothing....and are either Security Theater or just a way to annoy law abiding gun owners...

Criminals don't care...their straw buyer will get the gun anyway.

Mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, knowing that, how does a waiting period achieve anything?

And suicide.....Japan, China, Korea have almost absolute gun control and higher suicide rates than we do...so guns are not the issue in suicide so waiting periods don't effect those either...

Japan is a completely different country/society so that example is apples and oranges. Waiting periods will have no effect on shooters that plan their attacks or have straw buyers. Is it your belief that 100% of murders committed by these methodical criminals?

No...we were talking mass shooters....... the ones who aren't ticked off at a boss, the ones who have made plans, those are the ones who take months to years to plan their attacks.

Japan shows that long prison sentences do stop even hardened criminals from using guns......the problem here is that gun criminals get very short sentences, we had gun criminals here in Chicago get diverted from prison into boot camps and spend less than 3 years in prison......3 of them got out and shot up a basketball court filled with rival teenagers....

The only thing that will stop criminals from using guns, except for that tiny minority, would be long prison sentences....and it would have the benefit of keeping a killer off the streets for 30 years.

I’m fine with strengthening the punishments for violent criminals that use guns.

 

[Slade3200]

What’s no giving a shit? Are you trying to say that you don’t care if machine guns are regulated? Come on man, use your words

At this point, what difference does it make if the machine gun is regulated or not. We the People cannot get them unless we have a legal means to purchase, or are criminal like Eric Holder and get them from the DOJ..

It matters because it goes to the principle behind the law and our governments right to regulate weapons. Why can’t you just answer a simple question?

Did the federal government have a compelling need to severely limit public ownership of automatic weapons? I don't think so, but I was not around when it happened, and I don't believe there was any organized opposition to doing so, then or now. Water under the bridge.

Does the federal government have a compelling need to limit public ownership of semi-automatic weapons, or any sort? None has been demonstrated, so far.

Does desire of the people count as compelling? Im not saying by any means that the majority of Americans want to ban ARs but if they did and it was voted on then would you accept it?

No.....I wouldn't because you don't get to vote away Civil Rights. There is a reason owning and carrying guns is in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and why it is so hard to change the Constitution....so that momentary emotion doesn't do something in haste, that will cause great suffering later......

The Germans in the 1920s didn't think it was a problem turning in their World War 1 military rifles and registering their hunting rifles.....20 years later, those registration lists were used to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the German Socialists.....

Do you think the German people thought, in the 1920s that 20 years in the future their country would march 12 million European men, women and children into gas chambers? Keep in mind that Germany was a modern nation state, with the rule of law, modern universities, democratic processes, working courts........and no one saw it coming...

You are right, nobody saw it coming and something horrible happened. I also think it is a lazy fear tactic to imply that a similar situation would happen in our country. It’s like those comparisons between Trump and Hitler when it comes to discrediting the media.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

I did say that
You just didn't understand it

And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

I did say that
You just didn't understand it

And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I did say that
You just didn't understand it

And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

Look you fruit cake the Supreme Court ruled that the part before the comma has ZERO bearing on the right, that it is an individual right with NO, NADA, ZERO need for a militia. You love roe vs wade but cant seem to accept decisions you don't like how very progressive of you.

 

[Slade3200]

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

Look you fruit cake the Supreme Court ruled that the part before the comma has ZERO bearing on the right, that it is an individual right with NO, NADA, ZERO need for a militia. You love roe vs wade but cant seem to accept decisions you don't like how very progressive of you.

Please post my comment that made you think I was challenging the Supreme Courts decision. I’ll wait.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

Look you fruit cake the Supreme Court ruled that the part before the comma has ZERO bearing on the right, that it is an individual right with NO, NADA, ZERO need for a militia. You love roe vs wade but cant seem to accept decisions you don't like how very progressive of you.

Please post my comment that made you think I was challenging the Supreme Courts decision. I’ll wait.

Your continued INSISTENCE that a Militia has anything to do with our rights under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I did say that
You just didn't understand it

And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The militia has nothing to do with the fact that the second very clearly states the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people

 

[Slade3200]

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

Look you fruit cake the Supreme Court ruled that the part before the comma has ZERO bearing on the right, that it is an individual right with NO, NADA, ZERO need for a militia. You love roe vs wade but cant seem to accept decisions you don't like how very progressive of you.

Please post my comment that made you think I was challenging the Supreme Courts decision. I’ll wait.

Your continued INSISTENCE that a Militia has anything to do with our rights under the 2nd Amendment.

If I’m continuoisly insisting that the Supreme Court was wrong then it should be easy for you to post a quote where I said that. Let’s see it.

 

[Slade3200]

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The militia has nothing to do with the fact that the second very clearly states the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people

I’ll ask you too. When did I say otherwise? Post my comment

 

[Skull Pilot]

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The militia has nothing to do with the fact that the second very clearly states the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people

I’ll ask you too. When did I say otherwise? Post my comment

you seem to think it means more than it does

 

[2aguy]

At this point, what difference does it make if the machine gun is regulated or not. We the People cannot get them unless we have a legal means to purchase, or are criminal like Eric Holder and get them from the DOJ..

It matters because it goes to the principle behind the law and our governments right to regulate weapons. Why can’t you just answer a simple question?

Did the federal government have a compelling need to severely limit public ownership of automatic weapons? I don't think so, but I was not around when it happened, and I don't believe there was any organized opposition to doing so, then or now. Water under the bridge.

Does the federal government have a compelling need to limit public ownership of semi-automatic weapons, or any sort? None has been demonstrated, so far.

Does desire of the people count as compelling? Im not saying by any means that the majority of Americans want to ban ARs but if they did and it was voted on then would you accept it?

No.....I wouldn't because you don't get to vote away Civil Rights. There is a reason owning and carrying guns is in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and why it is so hard to change the Constitution....so that momentary emotion doesn't do something in haste, that will cause great suffering later......

The Germans in the 1920s didn't think it was a problem turning in their World War 1 military rifles and registering their hunting rifles.....20 years later, those registration lists were used to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the German Socialists.....

Do you think the German people thought, in the 1920s that 20 years in the future their country would march 12 million European men, women and children into gas chambers? Keep in mind that Germany was a modern nation state, with the rule of law, modern universities, democratic processes, working courts........and no one saw it coming...

You are right, nobody saw it coming and something horrible happened. I also think it is a lazy fear tactic to imply that a similar situation would happen in our country. It’s like those comparisons between Trump and Hitler when it comes to discrediting the media.

It isn't a tactic, it is history....do you know where our country will be in 50 years? What about parts of our country.....? Mexico has some very peaceful areas, but the areas around the border are controlled by the drug cartels and their corrupt military and police allies....the citizens have no guns, the cartels have actual military weapons.....and again, the Germans in the 1920s had no idea what was coming only 20 years later....

 

[danielpalos]

For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The militia has nothing to do with the fact that the second very clearly states the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people

The People are the Militia. There is no appeal to ignorance of the common law for the common defense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?

Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it

The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.

The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

The militia has nothing to do with the fact that the second very clearly states the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people

The People are the Militia. There is no appeal to ignorance of the common law for the common defense.

and the right belongs to the people