The Right To Bear Arms

[Brain357]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.

That is just silly.

And, historically correct.

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

 

[turtledude]

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.

2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto

3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason

4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them

tell us moron

why do cops need machine guns?

Do cops have machine guns?

Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto. Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...

Always with the name calling turtle. Why so childish all the time?

When did you become so pro criminal? They would love to have easy access to machine guns.

Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon. The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly. If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.

true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"

 

[Brain357]

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.

2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto

3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason

4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them

tell us moron

why do cops need machine guns?

Do cops have machine guns?

Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto. Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...

Always with the name calling turtle. Why so childish all the time?

When did you become so pro criminal? They would love to have easy access to machine guns.

Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon. The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly. If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.

true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"

I see what you ment now by "deadly". What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for? There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year. Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number. I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?

I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?

 

[Brain357]

When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?

I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?

I suppose he could, but it wouldn't be easy. And obviously the vast majority don't bother trying. I think our machine gun laws work great. If you really want one you can get one and criminals aren't using them.

 

[turtledude]

I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?

I suppose he could, but it wouldn't be easy. And obviously the vast majority don't bother trying. I think our machine gun laws work great. If you really want one you can get one and criminals aren't using them.

why are liberals so hateful of poor people?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?

I suppose he could, but it wouldn't be easy. And obviously the vast majority don't bother trying. I think our machine gun laws work great. If you really want one you can get one and criminals aren't using them.

Almost NO ONE uses a rifle to commit crimes. Machine pistols are big and bulky. They are not used for the same reason. Pistols are the preferred weapon of choice. Has nothing to do with our laws. It is about concealment. And our border is like a sieve hell less then 2 percent lo all cargo shipping is even inspected.Not to mention the fact that if one wanted to they could get firearms from Mexico from all over the world.

 

[westwall]

I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....

So you want people to have machine guns?

anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check. same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon. when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR

So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons? Just limit at heavy machine guns? Now that is remarkably stupid. Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines. You want to give them machine guns. Our machine gun laws now work great. The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime. Only a real dope would want to change that.

I do. I have 10 machineguns. They're a blast to shoot, and my friends love to come up from California on the 4th of July and shoot them. Just so you know, the only legally held machinegun ever used in a crime was a Mac-10 that a cop used to try and murder someone. The only thing the machinegun laws have done is make them super expensive so the average person can't afford them. The criminals who want them still get them and the values just keep going up and up. My first MG cost less than the tax stamp that accompanies the paperwork. Those days are long gone.

When was the last time you heard of them being used in the crime? Last time I checked they are almost never used.

Gangbangers use illegal short barreled shotguns all the time. They call it Booyahing. MGs are indeed rarely used, just like all rifles are rarely used.

 

[westwall]

When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.

That is just silly.

And, historically correct.

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

 

[Little-Acorn]

why are liberals so hateful of poor people?

They're not "hateful of poor people".

They hate poor people, rich people, people in between. They hate everybody.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

 

[Brain357]

That is just silly.

And, historically correct.

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

 

[turtledude]

And, historically correct.

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

you should move to one of them

it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And, historically correct.

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

Like Rwanda?

 

[Brain357]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

So we have the most guns of any other country. Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates? I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.

 

[Brain357]

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

Like Rwanda?

Really? Rwanda? No like most of Europe. Countries that are actually comparable to us. You are comparing us to Rwanda?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

So we have the most guns of any other country. Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates? I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.

Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.

 

[Brain357]

Really mass graves? There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns. They don't have mass graves. Sorry but it is silly. You obviously aren't looking at modern history.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

you should move to one of them

it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers

And there you go, right back to being a child. If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.

 

[Brain357]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

So we have the most guns of any other country. Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates? I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.

Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.

Those three all have much lower homicide rates. What crimes in particular are you speaking of?

 

[ninja007]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

sure you are...................judging by your post history your a hardcore leftist.