Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

Be ready, in NY last year, I wanted to get my dream weapon, an M1A SOCOM.

My local dealer said that was impossible without very expensive design changes to meet the strict state regulations.

I was going to settle for my second choice, an M1 Garand. Nope, can't have that either.

I could not, did not, want to spend that kind of money on a weapon so I had to go with what was ALLOWED by the state.

I got a Ruger mini30. With the mini 30 I could only have 5 round magazines, not the 10 rounds that comes standard with that weapon.

While I like the mini 30 it is NOT what I wanted, it is what I was ALLOWED.

AR platforms are pretty much illegal in NY, or at least you would not recognize it as an AR in most circumstances.

Get ready America, this will be coming to you too, at the very least.

I want so badly to still love my country and be a proud American. If Hillary gets elected Im going to Mexico.

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

WHY?

Anyone that thinks a Government wants to ban guns for the peoples sake is just full on retarded.

It is never for our benefit, only their agenda. So even if you dont like guns you should be against your government taking them from us.

How do these anti gunners not see that?

a reply to: burgerbuddy
I saw that about the 1st too.

Very disturbing that she doesn't even hide it anymore.

Change maker indeed. You just won't recognize the country when all Alinsky's goals are accomplished.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.

Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?

It was written in a time when you could legally own a person. Does that not tell anyone that it might need a bit updating? I really don't care if Americans want to shoot themselves to kingdom come, but, look at the weapons then vs now. It seems like a no brainer to me.

Then you'll have the people that say they need the guns to overthrow a tyrannical government (if needed) that don't have a basic understanding of how quickly they would be wiped out by their government if they tried. Yes, even members of the armed forces would attack you if the government labelled you as a domestic terrorist group, so that whole argument of "they'll never attack their own" does not hold water. They attack the enemy. You will be labelled "the enemy". Simple.

Waiting for the US to catch up (in gun control) with the rest of the civilized world so we can stop reading about the massacres in clubs, schools, malls, etc.

a reply to: uncommitted
"Shall NOT be infringed"

Simple.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.

Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?

Sure, I'll do that right after you show me where in the document it says anything about not allowing concealed carry. Can you show me that? Could you point that out for me?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.

Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?

Sure, I'll do that right after you show me where in the document it says anything about not allowing concealed carry. Can you show me that? Could you point that out for me?

It also doesn't say you can't buy a rocket launcher big enough to blow up the moon. There is lots it doesn't say. Proof that it needs updating.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.

Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?

Concealed carry is a modern "invention" or concept. It was a "common sense approach", created to allow the exercise of the 2nd Amendment while not "scaring" the uninformed population. As for the terrorist watch list? Well, once they implement a full set of due process laws to get placed upon that list, and consequently the same to be removed, then it cannot be used for that purpose. Until then, linking the two things is UNCONSTITUTIONAL since it strips a right away from someone without any due process.

But, I guess details such as these escape the gun-phobic fear mongers.

a reply to: nwtrucker

a reply to: superman2012

So your not American? Why would you think your opinion even matters at all?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?

I said all the guns.

I love you

Harry

originally posted by: imsoconfused
a reply to: superman2012

So your not American? Why would you think your opinion even matters at all?

Bahahaha....this guy.

No, you are right, my not American.

Why do you think my opinion does not matter? Is it because I brought up some good points or because you don't respect anyone else's opinion on the matter? If the latter is the case, why bother posting on an internet forum? Why not meet at a local coffee shop?

a reply to: uncommitted

They want to stop people on the no fly list from owning weapons.
Can you show me the legal process they have to go through to put someone on a no fly list? Can you show me the type of documentation they need to prove they are a danger?
No?
Huh.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.

Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?

Sure, I'll do that right after you show me where in the document it says anything about not allowing concealed carry. Can you show me that? Could you point that out for me?

It also doesn't say you can't buy a rocket launcher big enough to blow up the moon. There is lots it doesn't say. Proof that it needs updating.

And I didn't say that it did, did I? You and the other member seem to be confused and making things up then asking me questions based off what you've made up.

Pro-tip: it is updated every time a new law is passed that regulates firearms. Every single one of those is an "update" to the amendment. It won't be amended in full any time soon, because at one end you have weirdos that think only the government should have firearms because it knows best, at the other end you have weirdos that want to own a rocket big enough to blow up the moon, and both of you are too ignorant and stupid to listen to anybody in the middle, much less try to win us over to your side without resorting to name calling and other childish tactics like stamping your feet.

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?

I said all the guns.

I love you

Harry

Oh, sorry, I live in reality, not fantasyland.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

What is it that you think 'well regulated' means?
Remember that we need the definition that the founding fathers used when the document was written.

Even if you could use your own definition for 'well regulated', that term is used in reference to 'a militia', not weapons.

A militia is used as a reason for people to have weapons, but the way that the amendment is written does not limit the use of weapons to arm a militia.
Can you imagine telling a person in the 1790's that they could only have a weapon to use for military purposes?