Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The dumbest argument is the let's scrap all laws thing. Name one other law other than gun control that prohibits law abiding citizens from practicing a perfectly reasonable legal activity. Maybe you could also tell us what you think an assault weapon is and we can go from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom
Because there will be people who do not obey laws, we should have no laws.
More brain dead gunnuts logic at it's finest.
Did you not read the posts in your own thread or do you just simply choose to ignore those that crush your feeble argument?
I believe what the Constitutions says. That a well armed Militia is is necessary to the security of free people. If you want to use a gun, join the military.
Unfortunately for you no court in this country has ever agreed with your interpretation of the Constitution. If they did guns would already be illegal. Try again.
No, we are doing just fine, with automobile safety. The numbers are heading in the right direction.
As I said before those numbers include suicides (IE: people who wanted to die and would use any means to accomplish their goal), criminals killed by police, and gang bangers and other criminals who were killed by other criminals. Try again.
Did you not read the posts in your own thread or do you just simply choose to ignore those that crush your feeble argument?
Yes he does; ignore them that is. But that what an obsessed person does. They're only capable of one train of thought at a time and it rarely has a caboose. Even when it derails, in their mind it lives on in denial. It's really pathetic and should be good cause for mental reasons to preclude them from ever buying a gun.
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,860,746 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom
I believe what the Constitutions says. That a well armed Militia is is necessary to the security of free people. If you want to use a gun, join the military.
........"This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession."........
I believe what the Constitutions says. That a well armed Militia is is necessary to the security of free people.
When were you going to get around to the part that says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Or is your doublethink blocking that part out?
The part about the militia, is merely a reason WHY the right shall not be infringed. Not a condition on WHETHER it can be or not.
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."
Learn to speak English. And then read what the Constitution says. You'll be a lot less confused.
BTW, the vast majority of people killed by civilians' guns, aren't killed by the owners of those guns. They are killed by the people who stole them from the owners, or received them as stolen property.
The only "Gunnuts" are the ones who try (as hard as they can) to not believe that.
Thats kind of hard to do. Do you have a source that he was prevented from acquiring firearms? A quick Google doesn't bring up any obvious results.
Funny. Mine did. Guess I'm just smarter than the average, obsessed gun hater. Here's one of several. It includes a video so reading comprehension won't be needed. You don't have to bother thanking me.
You're wasting your time, Curmudgeon. This "kaaboom" person isn't interesting in facts, or truth.
He's only interested in supporting his agenda, no matter how many lies it takes or how much harm to innocent people it does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
