That didn't take long. HR 127

[Pogo]

Well hell, how long have we been registering cars for the public roads? There's always some gun fetishist posting in his underwear on this site screaming about how many traffic fatalities versus gun murders ---- even though no car is intentionally designed for it and those are all accidents....

Have it both ways much?

AMENDMENT 11 of the Bill of Rights:
A well regulated car, being necessary to the security of a productive State, the right of the people to keep and bear vehicles, shall not be infringed.
Great comparison! Registering cars is unconstitutional! Its in the bill of rights too!

That's pretty funny Harley.

I like how it brings to the forefront the term "well-regulated". I hadn't even thought of that but there it is.

well regulated in that time meant that all weapons were working properly and you had everything you needed for them to work. Such as ammunition.
I know in your statist mind you want it to mean something else, though...

Oh do I.

And what 'something else' would that be?

This oughta be good....

 

[Pogo]

Well hell, how long have we been registering cars for the public roads? There's always some gun fetishist posting in his underwear on this site screaming about how many traffic fatalities versus gun murders ---- even though no car is intentionally designed for it and those are all accidents....

Have it both ways much?

AMENDMENT 11 of the Bill of Rights:
A well regulated car, being necessary to the security of a productive State, the right of the people to keep and bear vehicles, shall not be infringed.
Great comparison! Registering cars is unconstitutional! Its in the bill of rights too!

That's pretty funny Harley.

I like how it brings to the forefront the term "well-regulated". I hadn't even thought of that but there it is.

well regulated in that time meant that all weapons were working properly and you had everything you needed for them to work. Such as ammunition.
I know in your statist mind you want it to mean something else, though...

Exactly...like regulating a clock...not writing a regulation.

to bring order, method, or uniformity to

And that is the only interpretation that makes any sense.

"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."

The correct interpretation...


An orderly and uniform militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Compared to...

A Militia governed by governmental regulations, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's is jarringly incongruous and illogical.

The word I like to use to explain the context of "well regulated" is "regimented."

reg·i·ment·ed
/ˈrejəˌmen(t)əd/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

very strictly organized or controlled.
"the regimented life of a long-term prisoner"

Sure, I concur.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is what you (Lying, cheating, fucktarded Dimz) voted for.

May it soon, bite you in the ass.

This kind of stuff gets introduced every single Congress. It's not going to pass. It probably won't even get a vote.

 

[Missourian]

The translation from the original German is a little rough in places

Zing!

 

[Pogo]

Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?

We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.

No, I mean, in light of how many people are killed each year as a result of alcohol use (and it's not even designed to kill), why don't we get rid of the stuff?

That was for anyone who believes that banning all guns is justified.

However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .

That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.

Actually you posted that to me, and your question was "why don't we do something about that?", not "why don't we ban that?". "Doing something about" does not equal "ban".

But then it wasn't for me since I never advocated banning anything.

However, back to the alcohol, it might be a good idea to ban Boone's Farm "wine". And Miller Lite. Just because they're stupid.

 

[Missourian]

However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .

That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.

Everclear.

Save your money and just swallow a chunk of burning charcoal, climb in the back of your buddies truck, knock yourself unconscious with a six pound sledge hammer and have him dump you out somewhere you've never been.

 

[Briss]

Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?

We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.

No, I mean, in light of how many people are killed each year as a result of alcohol use (and it's not even designed to kill), why don't we get rid of the stuff?

That was for anyone who believes that banning all guns is justified.

However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .

That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.

Actually you posted that to me, and your question was "why don't we do something about that?", not "why don't we ban that?". "Doing something about" does not equal "ban".

But then it wasn't for me since I never advocated banning anything.

However, back to the alcohol, it might be a good idea to ban Boone's Farm "wine". And Miller Lite. Just because they're stupid.

Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?

 

[justinacolmena]

Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?

Sure, notwithstanding some guy is drunk or high on drugs, shoots his neighbor and drags the body across his own threshold to establish justification for the homicide.

 

[Briss]

However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .

That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.

Everclear.

Save your money and just swallow a chunk of burning charcoal, climb in the back of your buddies truck, knock yourself unconscious with a six pound sledge hammer and have him dump you out somewhere you've never been.

We gotta ban AK-47s and whiskies.

 

[Briss]

Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?

Sure, notwithstanding some guy is drunk or high on drugs, shoots his neighbor and drags the body across his own threshold to establish justification for the homicide.

That's why they have Columbo.

 

[Pogo]

Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?

We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.

Plus, we already (still) do something about it --- age restrictions, drunk driving laws and "designated drivers", advertising laws --- and Prohibition still exists in some counties, just not on a federal level. The county I live in was "dry" when I moved here.

But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill.

" But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill."

Hmm, it's not designed to kill, but causes as many deaths as something designed to kill. Sounds dangerous. And the real kicker is that no one needs it. You can't hunt or defend yourself with it, so why are you not on the bandwagon to do something about that tragedy?

Because it's not my business to tell other people what they can do for fun. If it were a whole laundry list of things would be illegal, starting with raisins and ending with golf, with a boatload in between. But fortunately for everybody I'm Liberal so I won't do that.

And no, alcohol is not designed to kill, PERIOD. Cars aren't designed to kill, but they can crash. Planes and trains aren't designed to kill, they crash too. Tons of medications aren't designed to kill but that happens too. Thing is, cars, trains, planes, drugs don't kill when used as intended.

Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?

 

[Pogo]

Well hell, how long have we been registering cars for the public roads? There's always some gun fetishist posting in his underwear on this site screaming about how many traffic fatalities versus gun murders ---- even though no car is intentionally designed for it and those are all accidents....

Have it both ways much?

Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?

because to many people in congress drink...

I would have put it as "because not enough people in Congress think" but whatever.

 

[Briss]

Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?

We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.

Plus, we already (still) do something about it --- age restrictions, drunk driving laws and "designated drivers", advertising laws --- and Prohibition still exists in some counties, just not on a federal level. The county I live in was "dry" when I moved here.

But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill.

" But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill."

Hmm, it's not designed to kill, but causes as many deaths as something designed to kill. Sounds dangerous. And the real kicker is that no one needs it. You can't hunt or defend yourself with it, so why are you not on the bandwagon to do something about that tragedy?

Because it's not my business to tell other people what they can do for fun. If it were a whole laundry list of things would be illegal, starting with raisins and ending with golf, with a boatload in between. But fortunately for everybody I'm Liberal so I won't do that.

And no, alcohol is not designed to kill, PERIOD. Cars aren't designed to kill, they crash. Planes and trains aren't designed to kill, they crash too. Tons of medications aren't designed to kill but that happens too.

Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?

Alcohol is a choice; cars and medication are not. Try again.

 

[DukeU]

Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?

Guns save more lives than they take so.................


Guns SAVE 90 TIMES more lives than they take! | We the ...

 

[Briss]

Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?

We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.

Plus, we already (still) do something about it --- age restrictions, drunk driving laws and "designated drivers", advertising laws --- and Prohibition still exists in some counties, just not on a federal level. The county I live in was "dry" when I moved here.

But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill.

" But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill."

Hmm, it's not designed to kill, but causes as many deaths as something designed to kill. Sounds dangerous. And the real kicker is that no one needs it. You can't hunt or defend yourself with it, so why are you not on the bandwagon to do something about that tragedy?

Because it's not my business to tell other people what they can do for fun. If it were a whole laundry list of things would be illegal, starting with raisins and ending with golf, with a boatload in between. But fortunately for everybody I'm Liberal so I won't do that.

And no, alcohol is not designed to kill, PERIOD. Cars aren't designed to kill, but they can crash. Planes and trains aren't designed to kill, they crash too. Tons of medications aren't designed to kill but that happens too. Thing is, cars, trains, planes, drugs don't kill when used as intended.

Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?

But people are dying, and all because selfish Americans won't give up their alcohol, and you're Okay with that?

So when someone enters my house, you'd rather I didn't have a gun to defend myself?

 

[Pogo]

Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?

We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.

No, I mean, in light of how many people are killed each year as a result of alcohol use (and it's not even designed to kill), why don't we get rid of the stuff?

That was for anyone who believes that banning all guns is justified.

However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .

That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.

Actually you posted that to me, and your question was "why don't we do something about that?", not "why don't we ban that?". "Doing something about" does not equal "ban".

But then it wasn't for me since I never advocated banning anything.

However, back to the alcohol, it might be a good idea to ban Boone's Farm "wine". And Miller Lite. Just because they're stupid.

Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?

"deal with"?

As opposed to, what, ignoring them?

 

[Missourian]

My pistol and I perfectly registered, but if I enter California I'm limited to a 10 round magazine,

I read something about this...

... it was an AR15 workaround devised for states with 10 round magazine restrictions.

I believe it was to mark all your 30 round magazines permanently with .450 Bushmaster designations...as only nine rounds of .450 Bushmaster will fit in a standard 30 round AR magazine with a ridged follower.

Since I live in a free state...I don't have to worry whether this would stand up to legal scrutiny...

 

[JustAGuy1]

Well hell, how long have we been registering cars for the public roads? There's always some gun fetishist posting in his underwear on this site screaming about how many traffic fatalities versus gun murders ---- even though no car is intentionally designed for it and those are all accidents....

Have it both ways much?

You are certainly on an intellectual par with Sheila Jackson Lee.

 

[Briss]

Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?

We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.

No, I mean, in light of how many people are killed each year as a result of alcohol use (and it's not even designed to kill), why don't we get rid of the stuff?

That was for anyone who believes that banning all guns is justified.

However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .

That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.

Actually you posted that to me, and your question was "why don't we do something about that?", not "why don't we ban that?". "Doing something about" does not equal "ban".

But then it wasn't for me since I never advocated banning anything.

However, back to the alcohol, it might be a good idea to ban Boone's Farm "wine". And Miller Lite. Just because they're stupid.

Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?

"deal with"?

As opposed to, what, ignoring them?

So when someone enters my house, you'd rather I didn't have a gun to defend myself?

 

[Pogo]

Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?

Guns save more lives than they take so.................


Guns SAVE 90 TIMES more lives than they take! | We the ...

What's that car brand again..... Mercury? No, Studebaker? No.... oh yeah it's