The Right To Bear Arms

[Cecilie1200]

If you go to a gunshow,setup a booth and sell guns, you should be considered a dealer at that point and have to follow the laws of the Dealer.

Why? That’s a completely irrational position. Illustrated all the further by your inability to articulate why someone who sets up a freaking table should be considered a “dealer”.

I’ve seen people set up tables at craft shows - but they are not considered corporations. I’ve seen people set up tables at card shows - but they are not car dealers M - F. One can set up a table at any show to sell personal items.

And here you are, expecting leftists to understand and embrace the concept of a capitalist society. You're so unreasonable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

You touched the point here.

It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.

Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.

Seems logical to me to give developing adults increased responsibility BEFORE you give them increased capacity to act like jackasses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

Those kids have just went though a relationship that only Cops, Firefighters and Military should be subjected to. So they have experience that I hope you never have.

What you are shoging is the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" response. No discussion, no comprimise, nothing. Even Reagan wanted better gun control laws. Was he a bedwetter as well?

Oh, God, that "should" again. I get cold chills down my spine every time leftists start babbling about "should". It's always followed by some utterly unreasonable demand to create their ideal utopia.

And I offered you some completely reasonable points we could compromise on. Your response was to immediately shout, "You don't really mean it!" so that you could go on ranting and railing and spewing invective.

When you actually address those points, perhaps your "I'm the rational one" pose will have some weight.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

You touched the point here.

It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.

Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.

The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior. IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old. It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.

It's also a lot easier to convince a pack of 18-year-old boys to "take that hill" than it is to convince a pack of 30-year-old men.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.

I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.

Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.

Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers. Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020. I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks. So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.

Sweetie, you need only watch these mouthy little twerps on TV to see that their parents already did that.

Frankly, if one of my kids spoke to an adult, let alone an adult holding a position of authority, the way that boy did to Marco Rubio, I'd slap the taste out of his mouth for being so hysterical, ridiculous, and outright rude.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind. I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.

 

[Papageorgio]

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't encourage anyone to do anything because unlike you I realize that what other people choose to do is none of my ******* business

So just when I thought you were less negligent a person, you go and dash my hopes and dreams with this trash.

Yes god ******* forbid I mind mu own business.

And what makes you think I have any influence over gun owners? You certainly don't and you aren't doing anything to encourage gun owners to do anything.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They are definitely safer.

Maybe the gun is safer, but gun owners aren't safer than drivers. Simply by virtue of the fact that you take on unnecessary risk, then don't think you're responsible for any of it.

They are locked up when not in use.
Is your car?
How secure is your garage, or do you leave it in the driveway?
Your car is far more likely to be stolen than any of my firearms,
Yup, I'm definitely more responsible than you are.

That's great, but cars are insured...guns aren't. So there's no personal responsibility when it comes to firearms. I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives supported personal responsibility. But that got thrown out the window once Obama came out in favor of it.

Make no mistake, the only argument I'm making here is that there is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" other than one who gave up their guns. Merely bringing a gun into your home is an act of negligence, and all you people do is either increase or decrease your negligence. No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility.

Yes yes we know you are the only person who is 100% responsible and can pass judgement on millions of others

 

[Issa]

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?

You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.

 

[Issa]

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind. I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.

Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".

 

[Auld Phart]

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind. I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.

Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".

And remember it's just an "amendment".

then it should be fairly easy to have it removed

 

[Issa]

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind. I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.

Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".

And remember it's just an "amendment".

then it should be fairly easy to have it removed

It will...demographics are changing.

 

[oreo]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

Definitely needs to be updated. What blows my mind is that owners of PIT BULLS are required to get liability insurance on their dogs in many cities across this country. We are all required to have a liability insurance policies on our cars, our trucks, commerical vehicles, semi truck trailers--etc.
Liability Insurance for Pit Bulls & Dangerous Dogs

Yet someone can walk into a gun shop load up on semi-automatic weapons and ammo, that can kill hundreds within minutes--and there are no requirements what-so-ever as to how it is stored, people the gun owner can loan it too, or if it's stolen, and none of them require a liability insurance policy to purchase or own it.

Our forefathers never intended that the 2nd amendment be used to mass slaughter innocent civilians. There are many things we can do to insure that guns don't get into the wrong hands, we just need the right party in charge to make it happen.

Republicans have owned congress since 2010 and we have had 9 mass killings during this time where semi-automatics were used. They have done nothing except offer their sympathies, and hold prayer vigils--while fighting tooth and nail against any new regulations.

They even repealed Obama's order for mental health background checks, he initiated after Sandy Hook.
Trump repeals an Obama regulation keeping guns from people with certain mental health conditions

When Obama asked Republicans to put people who were on no fly lists and FBI terrorist watch list Republicans said NO.
Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns - CNNPolitics

shortly thereafter
49 innocent Americans were slaughtered in Orlando, Florida at a night club, because a terrorist who was on the FBI watch list was able to legally buy a semi-automatic.
Orlando shooting: 49 killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance - CNN

If you want common sense gun regulations in this country you'll have to vote for Democrats this coming November in the midterm election cycle. Republicans won't do it--they are going to protect their campaign cash cow first and foremost.

The gun rights organization spent a stupendous $54.4 million in the 2016 election cycle, almost all of it in "independent expenditures," meaning spending for or against a candidate but not a direct contribution to a campaign. The money went almost entirely to Republicans to a degree that almost looks like a misprint (but isn't): Of independent expenditures totaling $52.6 million, Democrats received $265. Yes, that's 265 dollars.

'Thoughts and prayers' — and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns

 

[Papageorgio]

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?

You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.

You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.

 

[Cecilie1200]

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind. I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.

Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".

Well, apparently coherent English will not be changing for the better under any regime of yours.

And remember, your dismissal of the Constitution and our rights is exactly why you will never be in charge.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind. I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.

Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".

And remember it's just an "amendment".

then it should be fairly easy to have it removed

It will...demographics are changing.

Good to hear you admit that the left's agenda is invasion and overthrow. Not that it was a secret.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.

I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.

Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.

Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers. Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020. I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks. So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.

Sweetie, you need only watch these mouthy little twerps on TV to see that their parents already did that.

Frankly, if one of my kids spoke to an adult, let alone an adult holding a position of authority, the way that boy did to Marco Rubio, I'd slap the taste out of his mouth for being so hysterical, ridiculous, and outright rude.

Those kids are forced to grow up too quickly with what they have been through. And they are mad as hell. Especially when they are trying to do something right and the A+ NRA rated political hacks try and put them down for it. It appears that having the A+ rating from the NRA is more important than our children's lives.

 

[radical right]

You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.

Good point, but we provide federal funding for research on childhood cancer, accidents, you name it, all kinds of other health issues. But not a dime for research on guns killing children.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And remember it's just an "amendment".

Yep, it is. Meaning, it changed the Constitution.

Remember Congress's power to "regulate commerce among the several states"? That's one of the things it changed.

Once the 2nd amendment got ratified, declaring that no govt in the United State could infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that meant (among other things) that they could no longer regulate guns under the Commerce Clause.

Big-govt pushers have been trying desperately to ignore that fact, of course, since it takes away one of their cherished powers: to infringe people's right to carry a gun. They have even used a false reliance on the Commerce Clause in court.

During the first case to get to the Supreme Court that tried to do this, US v. Miller in 1939, the defense didn't show up for the trial. So the govt. prosecution read several lies into the record, which the Justices rubber-stamped into an "opinion" since no one in the courtroom refuted them. One of those lies was that the Commerce Clause still enabled them to restrict firearms. Other cases have relied on this as a "precedent" ever since.

And big-govt pushers have carefully avoided discussing what the Constitution says. Instead they talk about what courts and legislators have said. As though those courts and bureaucrats superseded the Constitution. This practice still goes on today.