Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto M4 carbine?

[whitehall]

There are acknowledged legitimate restrictions in 2nd Amendment freedom. Why are we having this conversation?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Please show me the gun that was NEVER EVER EVER in the hands of a "Responsible" gun owner.
UNLESS, of course, you're repeating the clam that there are companies that manufacture guns only for criminals.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, I see. You're just a fucking dumb ass.

I'll be sure to use your retarded "logic" against you.

 

[Dadoalex]

good to see youve seen the mistake you made in your claim,,,

So you're saying the gun industry is a criminal enterprise?

 

[Dadoalex]

Your claim is so absurd that you have placed yourself into the classification of extremist lunatic. You ain't worth wasting any more time on.

Goodbye mr. troll.

Prove me wrong.

If it's absurd, it should be easy to prove the statement false.

 

[Dadoalex]

What?

Why can't an irresponsible person buy a gun? They buy guns all the time.

There are crazy people who buy guns at noon and murder a dozen people at 3PM. How are they responsible in any way?

Look at the OP.

 

[Dadoalex]

That’s the most twisted “logic” I’ve ever heard. That’s like saying if people didn’t “let” their cars get stolen, they wouldn’t be used on crimes. When I was a teenager, I remember seeing and hearing PSAs saying “don’t let a good kid go bad, lock your car”. Even then I thought that was stupid. A “good” kid isn’t going to steal you car even if you leave the keys in it, the doors open and the engine running. Anyone who takes anything that doesn’t belong to them is a criminal, period dot.

Cars have another purpose beyond killing.
Guns do not.
Therefore the culpability in allowing a firearm to be used in a crime lies with the "responsible owner."

The logic is clear, the denial is just a lie.

 

[Dadoalex]

Oh, I see. You're just a fucking dumb ass.

I'll be sure to use your retarded "logic" against you.

It takes a fool to own a gun.
It takes a bigger fool to fail to realize the danger.
It takes an even BIGGER fool to think he's smart enough to argue against my logic.

Strike three! You're a fool!

 

[2aguy]

Cars have another purpose beyond killing.
Guns do not.
Therefore the culpability in allowing a firearm to be used in a crime lies with the "responsible owner."

The logic is clear, the denial is just a lie.

You are really dumb.

Guns, you idiot, are used 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies and murders. That number is more than the criminals murdered by other criminals with guns…..you doofus. Lives saved with guns

 

[2aguy]

It takes a fool to own a gun.
It takes a bigger fool to fail to realize the danger.
It takes an even BIGGER fool to think he's smart enough to argue against my logic.

Strike three! You're a fool!

Do your parents know you are on the internet again? They grounded you for a month.

 

[westwall]

Prove me wrong.

If it's absurd, it should be easy to prove the statement false.

You can't disprove a negative, dumbass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd Amendment says you can legally own a full auto M4.

Yet you'd get arrested if the police found one in your possession.

What happened?

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment says no such thing.

The Second Amendment does say that the right is not unlimited.

That it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – including a full-auto M4.

And it says that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual are not entitled to Second Amendment protections.

Consequently, laws prohibiting the possession of full-auto M4s are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about we limit them to those who can show a need for them?

Or for those who can find or afford one – think of it as economic regulation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

doing it right now against you and others that would disarm and oppress me,,

This is a lie and delusional idiocy.

No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.

No one wants to ‘oppress’ you.

Grow up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd Amendment stipulates that the PEOPLE be armed with the most current weapons available.

This is a lie – it ‘stipulates’ no such thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It actually specifies that the right applies to militia membership and was interpreted that way until activist judges got ahold of it in 2008.

Do you think the meaning changed after being interpreted one way for well over 200 years? Or do you think the supreme court and many other courts at all levels were wrong for over 200 years?

It actually says it’s an individual right unconnected with militia service.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Scalia explained it in Heller. Read Heller. Educateyourself.

You first.

 

[westwall]

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment says no such thing.

The Second Amendment does say that the right is not unlimited.

That it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – including a full-auto M4.

And it says that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual are not entitled to Second Amendment protections.

Consequently, laws prohibiting the possession of full-auto M4s are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

It would be really hard to classify the primary small arm of the US Army as "unusual".

But then again, you are the epitome of the pseudo intellectual.

 

[westwall]

Or for those who can find or afford one – think of it as economic regulation.

So, the rich and powerful are OKAY to have them, but no one else. Our little fascist lifts his head up.

 

[westwall]

This is a lie and delusional idiocy.

No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.

No one wants to ‘oppress’ you.

Grow up.

Factually untrue. The dumbocrap fascists need to disarm us before they can institute their fascist clown show. Morons, like you, continuously misinterpret the 2nd for the simple reason that you want it to happen.

 

[Crepitus]

It actually says it’s an individual right unconnected with militia service.

No. Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.