To all Gun Grabbers

[OldLady]

But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons? Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road where others are also travelling? Public safety.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What I need or don't need is none of your business.

Do cops carry 50 round magazines? Does the US military?

My preferred handgun has a 15 round magazine, is that more than I "need"

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

There's a reason 50 round mags aren't common.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

And it seems you certainly think about shooting kids but I have never once thought about it

Why else would you ever need a 50 round magazine ?

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

I've used them at the range. I don't go shooting people either.

So we have to make massacres easier so you don’t have to reload at the range

Wouldn’t want to inconvenience you

I didn't think you would comprehend. You didn't disappoint.

 

[OldLady]

Stop trying to **** with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

I can honestly say I don't know a single person that honestly proposes banning guns.

Nope, even I who wish guns had never been invented, would be content with a sensible AR-type ban and limits on bullets and magazines.

 

[OldLady]

But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

Communists hate the second.

Really? I don't know any communists. But I suppose some of them would, since it seems most communist regimes begin with a lot of bloodshed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

Communists hate the second.

Really? I don't know any communists. But I suppose some of them would, since it seems most communist regimes begin with a lot of bloodshed.

Murder is a central theme in communism throughout their rule, even after they confiscate weapons.....to the tune of 100 million in the 20th century.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Murder is a central theme in communism throughout their rule, even after they confiscate weapons.....to the tune of 100 million in the 20th century.

But that resulted from the religions of Leninism and Stalinism, not from any specific idea found in Communism. And before you get sand in your giney: no, that is not an endorsement of Communism.

 

[progressive hunter]

Murder is a central theme in communism throughout their rule, even after they confiscate weapons.....to the tune of 100 million in the 20th century.

But that resulted from the religions of Leninism and Stalinism, not from any specific idea found in Communism. And before you get sand in your giney: no, that is not an endorsement of Communism.

may not be found in a communist teaching, but its always a result of communism

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Murder is a central theme in communism throughout their rule, even after they confiscate weapons.....to the tune of 100 million in the 20th century.

But that resulted from the religions of Leninism and Stalinism, not from any specific idea found in Communism. And before you get sand in your giney: no, that is not an endorsement of Communism.

Lenin was a marxist. There was no religion there. Better brush up on your history. Communism has never or never will work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, even I who wish guns had never been invented, would be content with a sensible AR-type ban and limits on bullets and magazines.

Such a ban makes absolutely no sense and cannot be soundly supported.

 

[OldLady]

But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

Communists hate the second.

Really? I don't know any communists. But I suppose some of them would, since it seems most communist regimes begin with a lot of bloodshed.

Murder is a central theme in communism throughout their rule, even after they confiscate weapons.....to the tune of 100 million in the 20th century.

Which ought to have shown them it wasn't the greatest idea....it's against human nature. But just like most pure, extreme ideas, somewhere in the middle works best.

 

[OldLady]

Nope, even I who wish guns had never been invented, would be content with a sensible AR-type ban and limits on bullets and magazines.

Such a ban makes absolutely no sense and cannot be soundly supported.

We'll see.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lenin was a marxist. There was no religion there.

Utter nonsense. Leninism was, itself, a religion. People like him, Stalin, and the Kim family push out religion, because they don't want competition.

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 253277

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes and it's just as constitutionally legal now obviously.

Sorry but your bullshit is being struck down in calipornia at the moment.

And the Supreme court says its constitutional.

The court knows the 2nd is limited.
Bump stocks: Supreme Court denies request to halt ban - CNNPolitics

Who the **** needs a bump stock?
I can use my belt loop or a rubber band.

You seem to have missed the point. The Supreme Court knows the 2nd is limited.

The Supreme Court stated that AR-15 rifles and all other bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

No they didn't. You are talking out your donkey rear again. And please don't go into the dissenting views on Heller V again. Dissenting means losers. Here is your prize.

 

[Blues Man]

So civilians don't have the right to protect themselves from the same criminals?

And the police have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so if you think the police will save your sorry ass you're an idiot

Do you need a 50 round magazine to protect yourself from criminals?
Do you plan on missing 49 times

What I need or don't need is none of your business.

Do cops carry 50 round magazines? Does the US military?

My preferred handgun has a 15 round magazine, is that more than I "need"

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

There's a reason 50 round mags aren't common.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

And it seems you certainly think about shooting kids but I have never once thought about it

Why else would you ever need a 50 round magazine ?

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

Yeah there are so many people out there using 50 round mags to shoot kids

Tell me what school shooter ever used a 50 round mag?

 

[progressive hunter]

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons? Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road where others are also travelling? Public safety.

HEY OLDLADY!!!

even after all the training and licencing tens of thousands of people are killed each yr by sane sober drivers,,,

but those are just the facts

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 253277

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons? Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road where others are also travelling? Public safety.

HEY OLDLADY!!!

even after all the training and licencing tens of thousands of people are killed each yr by sane sober drivers,,,

but those are just the facts

Wouldn't happen if they didn't have a vehicle, would it? Ahhhh, but God came down and chiseled the 2nd Amendment on the Constitution and we need to let everyone have a gun that can breathe.

 

[Rigby5]

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

I was just pointing out the the various reasons why you're a dumbass.
It's not my fault your depth of thought is no deeper than the kiddie pool.

Can't enlighten me, either, I see. Your argument of defense against the government is total bullshit and you know it. But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

We give governments way too much money and power.
We do that because we are lazy and afraid.
But the result is that they lie to us in order to get more money and power, like WMD in Iraq, and then they end up murdering innocent people.
As long as they are Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyans, Syrians, etc., we don't care.
But clearly no one should be foolish enough to think they are not going to be willing to murder us as well if that become necessary in order to gain more money and power.
If they can lie and murder 3 million Vietnamese and half a million Iraqis, they can murder anyone.

And exactly why would anyone call an AR a "serious weapon"?
If someone wanted to murder lots of people, a shotgun would easily be far more deadly.
You can kill far more people with each shot, as long as the range is short.

Actually it's better at around 75 yards. That gives the pellets time to disperse.
The spread at say 20 feet isnt much bigger than a pie plate.

True, but you can shorten the barrel or add a flare like a blunderbuss.
The military is experimenting with flared shotgun barrels.
Called a reverse choke.

 

[progressive hunter]

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons? Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road where others are also travelling? Public safety.

HEY OLDLADY!!!

even after all the training and licencing tens of thousands of people are killed each yr by sane sober drivers,,,

but those are just the facts

Wouldn't happen if they didn't have a vehicle, would it? Ahhhh, but God came down and chiseled the 2nd Amendment on the Constitution and we need to let everyone have a gun that can breathe.

I would say you might not be allowed to have one due to the mental instability,