Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: MrSpad

To say that would require you completely ignore all of American History. As we know, your interpretation of the Constitution means nothing

Oh there is no interpretation there.

People have to go to courts of LAW, and crimes be PROVEN in a court of law.

Someone hasn't committed a crime they simply can NOT be held accountable for the actions of someone else.

They call it a living document because it is open to the social and moral changes of the nation that change the interpretation of it.

No it isn't especially when it comes to the BILL OF RIGHTS.

It is more than the 2nd with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

More than one amendment deal with people having to go to court and the CRIME proven.

Then off to the 9th about construed= That means interpretated.

Infringe,deny,disparage. All mean the same thing.

The right to keep and bear arms was specifically laid out. Solidfied in the following amendments.

The mob gets it wrong when it comes to guns.

originally posted by: Answer
Criminals generally get guns from other criminals. They don't walk into a gun store and buy one off the shelf with the necessary paperwork and background check.

There are enough guns currently "on the street" that if you banned the private sale of firearms tomorrow and none were ever made again, there would still be enough available to arm every criminal who wanted one.

Guns have a market price, even when getting them from other criminals. Supply and demand, if you reduce the incoming supply, while leaving demand at roughly the same levels the price will increase.

It would take 50 years for a gun ban to have any effect on violent crime, but eventually it would have an effect provided you could maintain the political will to keep such a thing in place. I wouldn't count on that happening though.

a reply to: Aazadan

Guns have a market price, even when getting them from other criminals. Supply and demand, if you reduce the incoming supply, while leaving demand at roughly the same levels the price will increase.

That is why AK-47's, and other machine guns cost thousands of dollars.

Well out of reach for millions of Americans simply because they can't afford to buy one.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Aazadan

Guns have a market price, even when getting them from other criminals. Supply and demand, if you reduce the incoming supply, while leaving demand at roughly the same levels the price will increase.

That is why AK-47's, and other machine guns cost thousands of dollars.

Well out of reach for millions of Americans simply because they can't afford to buy one.

Semi-auto AK-47 variants can be had for around $500.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Answer
Criminals generally get guns from other criminals. They don't walk into a gun store and buy one off the shelf with the necessary paperwork and background check.

There are enough guns currently "on the street" that if you banned the private sale of firearms tomorrow and none were ever made again, there would still be enough available to arm every criminal who wanted one.

Guns have a market price, even when getting them from other criminals. Supply and demand, if you reduce the incoming supply, while leaving demand at roughly the same levels the price will increase.

It would take 50 years for a gun ban to have any effect on violent crime, but eventually it would have an effect provided you could maintain the political will to keep such a thing in place. I wouldn't count on that happening though.

That's a long 50 years for the law-abiding folks who are disarmed by the gun ban that now have to face the dramatic uptick in violence.

You'd never see a decrease in violent crime in that scenario because if criminals were the only ones with guns, they'd be thriving.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Aazadan

Guns have a market price, even when getting them from other criminals. Supply and demand, if you reduce the incoming supply, while leaving demand at roughly the same levels the price will increase.

That is why AK-47's, and other machine guns cost thousands of dollars.

Well out of reach for millions of Americans simply because they can't afford to buy one.

Semi-auto AK-47 variants can be had for around $500.

The real deal :

www.collectorsfirearms.com...

www.impactguns.com...

Semi auto meh.

The real deal.

2nd amendment, key word AMENDMENT.

Amendments can add, remove, or update parts of these agreements. They are often used when it is better to change the document than to write a new one.

So that stupid law is not set in stone. It can be changed or updated for the times.

What is so hard for gun owners to understand. The government can change it any damn time it wants to.

originally posted by: thefallenone
2nd amendment, key word AMENDMENT.

Amendments can add, remove, or update parts of these agreements. They are often used when it is better to change the document than to write a new one.

So that stupid law is not set in stone. It can be changed or update for the times.

YAY!

Another one who doesn't like freedoms and craves a police state!

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Aazadan

Guns have a market price, even when getting them from other criminals. Supply and demand, if you reduce the incoming supply, while leaving demand at roughly the same levels the price will increase.

That is why AK-47's, and other machine guns cost thousands of dollars.

Well out of reach for millions of Americans simply because they can't afford to buy one.

Semi-auto AK-47 variants can be had for around $500.

The real deal :

www.collectorsfirearms.com...

www.impactguns.com...

Semi auto meh.

The real deal.

Semi auto fire is more effective than full auto fire. The point about machineguns is pretty moot because there were so few transferable ones when the ban on newly manufactured MGs was put into place in 1986.

When you're talking about 310,000,000 guns in circulation, it's a vastly different conversation so your comparison was illogical.

a reply to: beezzer
Oh boo hoo, plenty of countries have strict gun laws and the first world countries are doing OK.

Only in the mind of gun owners will chaos ensure. Paranoid boobs.

originally posted by: beezzer


YAY!

Another one who doesn't like freedoms and craves a police state!

Always talk about freedoms. Yet the only ones you seem to care about are gun owners. Never once mention that the freedoms of non gun owners who don't want yahoos owning them.

There are other people in America who want gun laws to change.

What about their freedom to want this?

originally posted by: thefallenone
a reply to: beezzer
Oh boo hoo, plenty of countries have strict gun laws and the first world countries are doing OK.

Only in the mind of gun owners will chaos ensure. Paranoid boobs.

Called it!

gun ownership classified as a mental disease!

So, what other freedoms would you like to see denied?

Guns? check.
freedom of speech next?

originally posted by: thefallenone
2nd amendment, key word AMENDMENT.

Amendments can add, remove, or update parts of these agreements. They are often used when it is better to change the document than to write a new one.

So that stupid law is not set in stone. It can be changed or updated for the times.

What is so hard for gun owners to understand. The government can change it any damn time it wants to.

Good luck with getting all '57' states to agree, and ratify them.

originally posted by: thefallenone

originally posted by: beezzer


YAY!

Another one who doesn't like freedoms and craves a police state!

Always talk about freedoms. Yet the only ones you seem to care about are gun owners. Never once mention that the freedoms of non gun owners who don't want yahoos owning them.

There are other people in America who want gun laws to change.

What about their freedom to want this?

So you want people to have the freedom to deny freedom.

dafrak?

originally posted by: Answer

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

So now the constitution is bull crap and the founding fathers are idiots. They seem think that laws regarding guns ..etc could and should be amended with the times.

Otherwise there wouldn't be an option to amend.

originally posted by: thefallenone

originally posted by: beezzer


YAY!

Another one who doesn't like freedoms and craves a police state!

Always talk about freedoms. Yet the only ones you seem to care about are gun owners. Never once mention that the freedoms of non gun owners who don't want yahoos owning them.

There are other people in America who want gun laws to change.

What about their freedom to want this?

Plenty of Americans want all Muslims to die, should we respect their First Amendment freedoms and kill all Muslims?

How about the Americans who want all gays to die? All blacks?

You are free to want change but that doesn't mean the rest of the country has to take your idiotic request seriously.

originally posted by: beezzer


So you want people to have the freedom to deny freedom.

dafrak?

You don't? I mean every time someone mentions any change to the law, you guys get all up in arms. So you want to deny those who are for stricter gun laws their rights and freedom to do so?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Answer
Criminals generally get guns from other criminals. They don't walk into a gun store and buy one off the shelf with the necessary paperwork and background check.

There are enough guns currently "on the street" that if you banned the private sale of firearms tomorrow and none were ever made again, there would still be enough available to arm every criminal who wanted one.

Guns have a market price, even when getting them from other criminals. Supply and demand, if you reduce the incoming supply, while leaving demand at roughly the same levels the price will increase.

It would take 50 years for a gun ban to have any effect on violent crime, but eventually it would have an effect provided you could maintain the political will to keep such a thing in place. I wouldn't count on that happening though.

That's a long 50 years for the law-abiding folks who are disarmed by the gun ban that now have to face the dramatic uptick in violence.

You'd never see a decrease in violent crime in that scenario because if criminals were the only ones with guns, they'd be thriving.

But us dying at the hands of a criminal is perfectly acceptable to them.

Obviously, because taking guns from law abiding citizens is all they care about.

originally posted by: thefallenone

originally posted by: Answer


So much derp I don't even know where to start...

So now the constitution is bull crap and the founding fathers are idiots. They seem think that laws regarding guns ..etc could and should be amended with the times.

Otherwise there wouldn't be an option to amend.

If you want to make statements about the founding fathers' intentions with the Second Amendment, I suggest that you research the statements made by them around the time the Constitution was framed... there is no grey area.

Then again, I don't expect you to put forth that much effort. Bloviating recklessly from your sphincter is much easier.