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.
If I was a "government storm trooper", I'd do exactly what our great commander-in-chief BO wanted...
the nice thing about your fantasy is that you would be shot and killed during the process. unlike the Nazi's, who made sure no one they stole from were able to defend themselves.
Supreme Court justices die and are replaced, and with a Dem inn office for the foreseeable future, we'll see about that.
AFAIK, there weren't AK-47s in 1787, were there? There were muskets, and cannons. And most people who had guns used them for food acquisition. not to mow down children, not to bust into schools and kill kids.
And this ban, to probably a lesser degree than I would like, will happen and you can blame all of the lies and all of the bullying gun nuts have inflicted on this nation for decades. Had you guys been reasonable, had you been sane, a compromise could have been worked out. Too late for that.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole of debating guns, and I don't have to because this will all be settled in what I believe is in the best interests of society when we replace two or three fossils in robes. And there ain't jack you or anyone can do to stop it. Apart from electing a Republican, and that just ain't gonna happen. "See you in court," as they say!
you have no merit to argue this. AK 47's are already illegal to own and operate in the US.
this is all way over your head and you are embarrassing yourself.
Supreme Court justices die and are replaced, and with a Dem inn office for the foreseeable future, we'll see about that.
AFAIK, there weren't AK-47s in 1787, were there? There were muskets, and cannons. And most people who had guns used them for food acquisition. not to mow down children, not to bust into schools and kill kids.
And this ban, to probably a lesser degree than I would like, will happen and you can blame all of the lies and all of the bullying gun nuts have inflicted on this nation for decades. Had you guys been reasonable, had you been sane, a compromise could have been worked out. Too late for that.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole of debating guns, and I don't have to because this will all be settled in what I believe is in the best interests of society when we replace two or three fossils in robes. And there ain't jack you or anyone can do to stop it. Apart from electing a Republican, and that just ain't gonna happen. "See you in court," as they say!
So, you think that because guns have changed that the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes also?
The founders were well aware that weapons technology would continue to evolve in the future because they had witnessed it evolve in the past.
Weapons technology didn't begin with the Musket.
And the vast majority of legal gun owners in America dont use their guns to "mow down children or bust into schools and kill kids"......but that certainly doesn't stop people like you from characterizing them that way if it helps your agenda.
So, you think that because guns have changed that the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes also?
Didn't say that. I believe the original intent in Philadelphia in 1787 has been perverted and that the original intent was for a, Uh, "a well regulated militia," which you as an individual are not,. You aren't. So rather than changing the meaning, it's getting back to the original intent.
Quote:
The founderswere well aware that weapons technology would continue to evolve in the future because they had witnessed it evolve in the past.
Weapons technology didn't begin with the Musket.
No one could have dreamed of assault weapons back then. No one. And if you have proof that they could have or did recognize that, cite it.
Quote:
And the vast majority of legal gun owners in America dont use their guns to "mow down children or bust into schools and kill kids"......but that certainly doesn't stop people like you from characterizing them that way if it helps your agenda.
Well, like I said, you guys had your chance to be reasonable and instead you went all "ballistic" and pushed too far. I'm very sorry but there's no unringing of that bell.
Agenda? What agenda do I have? I don't believe people should have guns; that's not an agenda, it's a belief.
What gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters are concerned about is that those who argue for law-born answers to the 'gun violence epidemic' do not concern themselves with the following:
If passing a law was the answer to solving a problem, why do people still murder? Do you think that some gangbanger or person with a death wish cares about the tacked on consequences that the laws against certain types of firearms can provide a prosecutor with AFTER the murder(s) have been carried out? Because in the gangbanger's case, he's already facing a life sentence (if we're lucky) or the death penalty (fat chance in some places). Unless the penalty for using, say, an AR-15 or a 'high capacity' magazine includes chopping off said convict's hands before sending them to prison, just what does an extra 10 years on a life sentence do to deter the murder in the first place? (Let's not forget the liberal desire to let them out early for 'good behavior.')
Because that's what you want, what we all want, right? We want to STOP the killing BEFORE it happens. So how does passing another law that won't be obeyed by anyone determined to commit murder help?
What people like AlfieBoy seem to relish is the thought of some well-armed and staffed ATF task force capable to rolling door to door, committing the very same civil right violations that they protest our police doing when hunting for real threats. Never once do people like AlfieBoy think about sending the ATF and police into the criminal dens and the gang safe houses to confiscate THEIR weapons. No, they hit the houses of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who wasn't going to commit any murder nor carry out any crimes with their firearms. But since they are good people and dutiful citizens, they turn them over. Meanwhile, the bad guys who don't register their guns, certainly don't care about the law, and are now emboldened by disarmed targets, hit Mr. and Mrs. Jones house at night and do heinous things. AlfieBoy and his ilk get to offer the same prayers they accuse the "evil" NRA of passing out after people the NRA does NOT support kill innocent people. They also get to add it to the "gun violence" statistics.
Another parting thought: why is it that so many liberals denounce the "war on drugs?" They say it doesn't work (which I am actually in agreement with, even though I'd like drugs wiped off the face of the planet, people are always going to want to get high, and will simply find something else) and they get pissy when drug raids are carried out against "unlicensed pharmacists." How is it not a stretch to imagine the same activity being massaged into a "war on guns?" Oh, because it's in the Constitution? The same 2nd Amendment so many salivate at ripping up?
The concept of compromise is often lost during the gun control debate; the pro-gun control side talks compromise, but gives nothing in return, save "oh, you get to keep one of your guns that we deem 'acceptable.'" That's not compromise.
I have NO problem with universal background checks, as long as that database is NOT controlled by potential confiscators. Demand background checks at every venue, gun show, gun store, etc. Happy? Oh wait... how will you make sure Johnny Lowrider goes through a background check when he buys one off his homie in an alley, or steals one from someone's safe, or kills a rival and takes their already-illegal gun?
Oh, and that whole "penis substitute" jab some of you like to make? You realize many men who've risked life and limb to defend others while in uniform own and use firearms when they become civilians. Are these brave souls compensating for something? What snide remark do you have for the millions of women in the USA who own and use firearms for protection? Should they just... teach others not to harm, or men not to rape?
And this ban, to probably a lesser degree than I would like, will happen and you can blame all of the lies and all of the bullying gun nuts have inflicted on this nation for decades. Had you guys been reasonable, had you been sane, a compromise could have been worked out. Too late for that.
At what point would gun control advocates be satisfied?
At what point would they not demand another ban, rule, restrictions or whatever meaningless, feel good legislation they come up with after the next highly publicized shooting works them into a frenzy of manufactured outrage?
Where exactly is the line in the sand that gun control avocates won't cross?
The whole point is to take everyone's 2nd amendment rights away. That's why they keep saying "we need to start somewhere" and the "start" is the start of confiscation. Here in NJ a guy had his gun permit denied because 15 years earlier he was acquitted of a domestic violence charge but the court said the accusation alone was enough.
Didn't say that. I believe the original intent in Philadelphia in 1787 has been perverted and that the original intent was for a, Uh, "a well regulated militia," which you as an individual are not,. You aren't. So rather than changing the meaning, it's getting back to the original intent.
No one could have dreamed of assault weapons back then. No one. And if you have proof that they could have or did recognize that, cite it.
Well, like I said, you guys had your chance to be reasonable and instead you went all "ballistic" and pushed too far. I'm very sorry but there's no unringing of that bell.
Agenda? What agenda do I have? I don't believe people should have guns; that's not an agenda, it's a belief.
1. the first automatic weapon was made is 1718
2. Well regulated meant "in good working order" it was common to describe a clock the kept time as "well regulated"
3. A militia is all able bodied men.
4. A well regulated militia mean "well trained citizens".
Now that we got all of that cleared up, I would love to hear your thoughts about how the first amendment only protects a Gutenberg printing press and how all other forms of media and publication that were not invented by 1789 are not included.
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.
