The democrats want to ban all semi-automatic guns…don’t tell us this isn’t their plan….

[M14 Shooter]

I doubt you're a donor to them. They agree with me: you're a gun controller.

Tell us again, Scotsman, how you believe the people have the right to own ans use nukes, and this right is protected by the 2nd.
Man up, son.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The democrats want to ban all semi-automatic guns

This is a lie.

It’s not part of their ‘plan’ – in fact, there is no ‘plan.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, the “some democrats,” are the leaders of the democrat party and their Allies……

You’re an established liar and the thread premise is a lie.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why the HELL can't we EVER talk about what we are going to DO ABOUT IT?

Because FBI faggots are surfing the board looking for a reason to charge gun owners with a conspiracy crime.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You’re an established liar and the thread premise is a lie.

Right back at you, you lying-ass gun grabber.

 

[woodwork201]

Tell us again, Scotsman, how you believe the people have the right to own ans use nukes, and this right is protected by the 2nd.
Man up, son.

How was your vacation? I nearly missed your stalking (but not really) but I'm glad to see you back stalking again. Are you planning to go on vacation again soon?

If you want to change the Constitution, gun controller, you use Article V. Congress doesn't have the authority to change the Constitution even for nukes. The process is there and it's completely irresponsible of them to not address it.

But it's not very worrisome; Iran has spent more money on trying to get one than Bill Gates has and hasn't succeeded. You should write your congressman, though, and get them started on an amendment. Perhaps you can get them to repeal the 2nd Amendment altogether so you can get your other gun control measures passed.

 

[Man of Ethics]

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. Both parties are willing to sacrifice innocent people for their agenda.

 

[Man of Ethics]

I believe that Human Soul is G-d's Creation. Human life is precious. Most Jews, Christians, and Muslims know that murder and suicide are sins!

 

[woodwork201]

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. Both parties are willing to sacrifice innocent people for their agenda.

Man of ethics.. Yeah, what a laugh. Not a Democrat nor a Republican.. more laughs. Sit there on the safety of your fence, pointing fingers both ways, quoting garbage, meaningless, numbers, and pretend you're above it all. That's about as gutless as it gets.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Man of ethics.. Yeah, what a laugh. Not a Democrat nor a Republican.. more laughs. Sit there on the safety of your fence, pointing fingers both ways, quoting garbage, meaningless, numbers, and pretend you're above it all. That's about as gutless as it gets.

Both sides do not view Human Life as Sacred Creation of G-d.

 

[woodwork201]

Both sides do not view Human Life as Sacred Creation of G-d.

Most on the right do view human life as sacred creation of God. And yet you argue for the gun control that those on the left wish to impose.

You're sitting up on your high horse, ignoring the fact that when the population is disarmed, the Constitution will be put aside, the Supreme Court either dismantled or packed, and, once again, millions of babies will be murdered in the womb with the Federal Government protecting the right of the killers to perform the abortions.

Your sanctimonious, fence sitting, views, taking the narrow view of the right to self-defense as evil, will eventually, and in years, not decades, lead to the deaths of millions of born and unborn human beings. The cure for violence is strength, not submission or weakness. Every genocide of the born human beings has been perpetrated by the strong, well-armed, against the weak, poorly or un-armed of the world.

But, once again, you sit up there on the fence, pointing fingers both ways, and try to convince yourself that by not taking a stand you're not part of the cause of millions of deaths.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Most on the right do view human life as sacred creation of God. And yet you argue for the gun control that those on the left wish to impose.

There are some issues on which the Left is more humane then the Right.

Guns must be opposed. All people in need must be supported.

 

[woodwork201]

There are some issues on which the Left is more humane then the Right.

Guns must be opposed. All people in need must be supported.

Guns must be opposed even though modern governments have disarmed their populations and then murdered hundreds of millions of those they disarmed.

So you're not really a fence sitter, you're not really a Christian even though you pretend to even avoid typing the name God (which is not the name forbidden to be used). You're just another anti-gun, leftist, willing to see, even help, to kill your share of millions, both born and in the womb, to get rid of guns.

What a lying, hypocritical, sack of shit you are.

 

[Man of Ethics]

So you're not really a fence sitter, you're not really a Christian even though you pretend to even avoid typing the name God (which is not the name forbidden to be used).

I am Jewish. I do not use electricity or Internet on Jewish Holidays.

I also have disability -- Autism and Depression. Thus, I feel sad for all people in need.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How was your vacation

Why are you afraid to admit in public that you believe the people have the right to own and use nukes?
Why are you afraid to admit in public that you believe the 2nd Amendment ptotects this right?

 

[2aguy]

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. Both parties are willing to sacrifice innocent people for their agenda.

Americans use their legal guns to stop rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, stabbings and mass public shootings 1.1 million times a year according to the centers for disease control...lives saved from violent criminals.

On top of that, armed Americans ensure that the government has to stay in line...the insure that the political parties have to use rhetoric, not violence to win elections....as the democrat party use of the brown shirts, blm and antifa show. The democrats ordered them to loot, burn and kill in black neighborhoods, in democrat party cities....why? Because those cities are under the control of the democrats and they have enacted extreme gun control there...the odds of blm and antifa brown shirts being stopped by armed citizens is tiny.......and when the democrats order the police to stand down and do nothing, normal citizens in those cities have to just sit back and watch their lives ruined by looting and burning......
that doesn't happen to the businesses where the owners have rifles......those businesses are left alone........

that we keep the peace through an armed citizenry drives people like you nuts...

 

[woodwork201]

Why are you afraid to admit in public that you believe the people have the right to own and use nukes?
Why are you afraid to admit in public that you believe the 2nd Amendment ptotects this right?

First off, gun controller, this is a strawman argument. You're using this argument, just as thousands of gun-controllers before you have done, in an attempt to establish a limit on "shall not be infringed" with the sole purpose, then, of you being the person who says what that limit is.

Do you believe that ricin or mustard gas are protected arms? Why wouldn't they be? For the same reason as a nuclear arm might not be: your right to exercise your rights stops at the tip of my nose - or more accurately, when you threaten my space and not just my nose.

There is no circumstance where you can use a nuclear weapon that doesn't cause harm outside of you and your property. There's no way that you can control the use of ricin, mustard, militarized anthrax, or many other weapons of mass destruction.

Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment must be violated to stop Bill Gates from building an end-of-the-world, doomsday weapon? No, it is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment to stop such a thing nor is it a precedent that there are limits on the 2nd Amendment. There is no set of events, world circumstance, local insurrection, or anything else that can be construed to give you, a single wacko individual, the authority or power to kill anyone indiscriminately, let alone thousands to millions. That you cannot kill thousands, as seems to be your wish, is not precedent to keep me or anyone else from owning any weapon that can be used discriminately - and that's every weapon that is not a literal weapon of mass destruction.

So the 2nd Amendment probably does protect hand grenades because anyone not as stupid as you could apply reason and discrimination in its use. It probably does not include a landmine because you can't control its use. It does include a belt-driven minigun but does not include the use of weaponized anthrax. And there's no precedent you can take from that to ban any other weapon, gun controller.

Your attempt to connect nuclear weapons and the 2nd Amendment, though, claiming that because the 2nd Amendment doesn't prevent the government or the world from preventing you or Bill Gates from ending the world, therefore, any new style weapon that is not yet in common use can be banned without offending the 2nd Amendment, just goes to prove that you are as much a gun controller as is anyone else on this site. It proves to any who have, up to now, questioned why I point out that you are a gun controller that I was right all along; you're arguing the very same strawman argument that every gun controller on the site argues.

But the whole question is easily fixed. There have been weapons of mass destruction for over 100 years. Congress should have ratified an amendment long ago. Let's encourage them to do it in a way that there's no debate about their power to do it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you believe that ricin or mustard gas are protected arms? Why wouldn't they be? For the same reason as a nuclear arm might not be: your right to exercise your rights stops at the tip of my nose - or more accurately, when you threaten my space and not just my nose.

Ah.
You agree there --is-- line that draws the limit of which weapons are protected by the the 2nd Amendment and which are not.
And that line must be somewhere between firearms, which you agree we have the right to own and use, and nuclear weapons, which you agree we do not.
Contrary to your claim, and proof of mine.

Per you:
-There is no line. There's no "dangerous or unusual" clause in the Constitution, gun controller. You're a fucking idiot and completely unwilling, because you know you're unable, to defend your claim that dangerous or unusual arms, or arms not in common use, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
- There is no dangerous and unusual line in the Constitution; the line doesn't exist, gun controller. Tell where the line comes from and what weapons you believe fall into that category, gun controller.
- There's no "except" in there.

AR15: In common use?

Yep... We can always count on the gun controllers to jump to nuclear weapons. You just prove that you are no less of a gun controller than the other leftists. You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.

www.usmessageboard.com

So, Scotsman, you fucking idiot:
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you vote for Democrats then you get Democrat policies. You want Democrat policies or you wouldn't vote for Democrats.

Yes, it is hard enough to keep Republicans from jumping on the ban guns band wagon, when the left whips up emotions. No matter what any Dem politicians says, when an anti-gun bill comes up, they will vote "aye."

 

[woodwork201]

Ah.
You agree there --is-- line that draws the limit of which weapons are protected by the the 2nd Amendment and which are not.
And that line must be somewhere between firearms, which you agree we have the right to own and use, and nuclear weapons, which you agree we do not.
Contrary to your claim, and proof of mine.

Per you:
-There is no line. There's no "dangerous or unusual" clause in the Constitution, gun controller. You're a fucking idiot and completely unwilling, because you know you're unable, to defend your claim that dangerous or unusual arms, or arms not in common use, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
- There is no dangerous and unusual line in the Constitution; the line doesn't exist, gun controller. Tell where the line comes from and what weapons you believe fall into that category, gun controller.
- There's no "except" in there.

AR15: In common use?

Yep... We can always count on the gun controllers to jump to nuclear weapons. You just prove that you are no less of a gun controller than the other leftists. You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.

www.usmessageboard.com

So, Scotsman, you fucking idiot:
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

There is no line between a musket and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not in the category protected by the 2nd Amendment or a right to keep and bear arms. Not even you are stupid enough to assume that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to keep and bear weapons that would end life on earth.

But, once again, you're proving that you are a gun controller by, just like thousands of gun controllers before you, making the strawman argument about end-of-the-world weapons as if those are included in the right to keep and bear arms.

Nukes are not included in the right to keep and bear arms, therefore there's no limit on the 2nd Amendment and "shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to end the world.

It would be a limit on the 2nd Amendment if it were allowed to restrict a weapon that fits in "the right to keep and bear arms" but when the weapon doesn't fit in the right it is no limit on the 2nd Amendment to ban it.

You argue that because the right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to keep and bear end-of-the-world weapons, therefore any gun that the Congress and Supreme Court says is illegal is actually constitutionally illegal. Your argument proves you are absolutely a Brady/Bloomberg style gun controller.