Biden: There’s ‘No Rational Basis’ For Citizens To have 9mm Pistols

If we keep supporting this train wreck Biden administration we will be defending ourselves with sharp sticks.

a reply to: IxTheReaper


The founders specifically put "shall not be infringed" into the language to prevent the kind of "common sense reforms" nonsense that could pop up at some point to enslave the population. You see here in the USA we are all born as free citizens. This means that we have rights and the government doesn't give those rights to us - they are ours.

I understand how foreign this concept is to many of you over seas. I cant imagine being bred and conditioned to accept that someome has the authority to "give" or "take" your rights away based on mood or a whim. If you obey really well and suck up enough - do they grant you more rights over there?

If you honestly think for one second that you were restricted from buying a cannon - like biden says - then you are probably too susceptible to propaganda to help.

There is a distinct and major difference between a citizen and a subject. They want us to be good little subjects (property) not independent citizens that are free.

The founders understood the difference and that is why they deliberately used that language.

If you want to prove they want you dependent look no further than social systems like disability.
a reply to: rickymouse

originally posted by: IxTheReaper
You do of course realise that your precious 2nd Ammendment was written in 1792 and the first known caliber bullet wasn't invented until about 1876?
As an Aussie I find it ridiculous that you lot scream about 2nd ammendment, conveniently ignore the fact that it was written when the most deadly gun they could fathom was a single shot front load musket, capable of 3 shots in a minute - in the hands of a competent musketman!


a reply to: Gothmog

They’re Americans, it’s their constitution, not yours, as Australian it makes absolutely no difference to you whether Americans can legally pack heat or not.

I’m English, however if I lived in the US I’d 100% wanna pack some serious heat.

Can you legally own submachine guns or fully automatic assault rifles in the US, or is it down to individual state laws?

a reply to: IxTheReaper

Nothing stopping that kid from grabbing a lg kitchen knive on his way out the door...right?

Then? Clear out all the kitchens in all the homes and places in the world....I mean.......? Thnx ✌️

originally posted by: IxTheReaper

originally posted by: wills120

originally posted by: IxTheReaper

originally posted by: Gothmog

Biden: There’s ‘No Rational Basis’ For Citizens To have 9mm Pistols

Joe , Thomas Jefferson made it perfectly clear as to the reason for the 2nd Amendment .
And there was no caliber restrictions involved .

You do of course realise that your precious 2nd Ammendment was written in 1792 and the first known caliber bullet wasn't invented until about 1876?
As an Aussie I find it ridiculous that you lot scream about 2nd ammendment, conveniently ignore the fact that it was written when the most deadly gun they could fathom was a single shot front load musket, capable of 3 shots in a minute - in the hands of a competent musketman!

You are quite wrong. Enjoy reading about the Puckle gun:

Puckle Gun

Haha I'll give you that one - sort of. I definitely had no idea that there was a 'repeating gun' that old, but technically i'm still right, as in that was musket balls - not a caliber of ammunition that the origial post was trying to point out

No, you're not technically right. Your main point was that when the Founders wrote 2A, all they had in mind was muskets, as if they were all simpletons that had no idea technology advances.

You are 100% factually wrong.

originally posted by: dava6711

originally posted by: IxTheReaper
You do of course realise that your precious 2nd Ammendment was written in 1792 and the first known caliber bullet wasn't invented until about 1876?
As an Aussie I find it ridiculous that you lot scream about 2nd ammendment, conveniently ignore the fact that it was written when the most deadly gun they could fathom was a single shot front load musket, capable of 3 shots in a minute - in the hands of a competent musketman!


a reply to: Gothmog

They’re Americans, it’s their constitution, not yours, as Australian it makes absolutely no difference to you whether Americans can legally pack heat or not.

I’m English, however if I lived in the US I’d 100% wanna pack some serious heat.

Can you legally own submachine guns or fully automatic assault rifles in the US, or is it down to individual state laws?

You can legally own them, but the process is so long to get cleared to buy one and they're so expensive that hardly anyone has them.

originally posted by: IxTheReaper
You do of course realise that your precious 2nd Ammendment was written in 1792 and the first known caliber bullet wasn't invented until about 1876?
As an Aussie I find it ridiculous that you lot scream about 2nd ammendment, conveniently ignore the fact that it was written when the most deadly gun they could fathom was a single shot front load musket, capable of 3 shots in a minute - in the hands of a competent musketman!


a reply to: Gothmog

What YOU don't seem to understand is that the 2nd isn't necessarily about GUNS, it's about self protection from OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

Ergo, it's not about the caliber of gun, as we citizens should have access to the SAME protection our government uses. That includes tanks, rocket-launchers, EVERYTHING the U.S. Government uses on its People, we have the right to also use against them!

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Xtrozero

It isn’t murder if it is an abortion. Go back and read again and know how sarcastic I can be about things. Like if a 9 could blow out a lung then they should use it for abortions to blow the baby out.

If you used a coat hanger or a shop vac it would be an abortion, but, you want to use an "evil" gun and that's murder.

a reply to: XipeTotex

I have seen many bear out in the woods and at the dump years ago. Even get them in the yard once in a while at my house. So far the bears have just been bears, they are not a threat, talking to a mother with it's cub usually keeps her settled down. Last time we had a bear here, the mother had three cubs and two cubs were climbing the tree next to the house cause they were scared. I looked right at the mother as she looked at me and said...guess you got problems with your kids too. She went to the tree and got them down and the third went up in a tree at the end of the yard...she had to coax that one down while trying to keep the other two cubs from getting lost or in trouble again. Kids....don't yell at a mother bear that is trying to keep her kids under control....don't do that to a human mother either, that could turn bad too, animals are not that different than humans.

a reply to: IxTheReaper

As an Aussie I find it ridiculous that you lot scream about 2nd ammendment

Which makes your post completely irrelevant .

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: rickymouse
Yeah, when you are out picking blueberries and a bear comes around...pull out that twenty two pistol to piss off the bear with. I got a three fifty seven to take out picking berries, at least you can slow him down when it chases you with nine shots from that. But again, the Democrats do not want you out picking berries, they want you dependent on them to survive.

I don't know what you are getting at here...
The .22 is NOT for shooting bears.
It is for shooting whoever is with you, in the foot, to slow them down as you are running from said bear.

A twenty two long rifle will take down a deer at a hundred yards if you shoot it in the right spot, it is not a toy. I wouldn't go after a bear with a 22. In fact I wouldn't go hunting bear with my 30-30 deer rifle, but at least you can try to protect yourself with a bigger caliber gun if they come at you. I would only use a 22 if it was my only option. My desert eagle is pretty big to be carrying around when berry picking though, I need to get a conceiled weapons permit this year. When you open carry a pistol in the woods picking berries, it seems nobody is afraid of you, in fact if something starts chasing them they run towards you because they know you have a gun to protect them if needed.

a reply to: rickymouse

Absolutely. This talk of "you could kill a bear with a .22." Sure. You could. You could probably kill it with your bare hands. I read about a guy in Alaska that killed one with a pocket knife. He just got lucky and hit it in exactly the right spot.

Your odds of doing that though are extraordinarily low, as they are with a .22.

originally posted by: Backagain
a reply to: infolurker
... Biden is wrong. Now if he said AR15, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I think to buy that type of weapon, there should be requirements. Clearly I believe, in the 2nd amendment, if I didn't We wouldn't have guns.

But there is that slippery slope thing. First they introduce requirements to purchase an AR15. Then they establish conditions to own one. Then once they have everyone registered, they take them away when they want. Now they have a precedent and start to come after all the other guns you own.

Liberty does not die in one massive gasp; the life is squeezed out of her bit by bit until she finally takes her last breath and passes quietly into the darkness.

I have a mental acuity test for senile officials, or citizenship test, or a possible purpose for public schooling.

Did anyone else have to memorize the founding documents?

The Declaration of Independence gives the basis for military grade weapons.

Also, there was a tradition against standing armies, in order to prevent a repeat of the redcoats.

originally posted by: TheCave
If you want to prove they want you dependent look no further than social systems like disability.
a reply to: rickymouse

I paid in to social security for twenty five years before winding up disabled from a car accident. I wish I could have still worked part time but with epilepsy it is hard because you cannot count on being able to work or even drive to work or back to get on a schedule.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: rickymouse

Absolutely. This talk of "you could kill a bear with a .22." Sure. You could. You could probably kill it with your bare hands. I read about a guy in Alaska that killed one with a pocket knife. He just got lucky and hit it in exactly the right spot.

Your odds of doing that though are extraordinarily low, as they are with a .22.

Still, if you are out in the woods and a bear decides to go after you, I would rather have a 22 than no gun at all. I sure wouldn't feel safe with a small gun like that. It would be a good deterrent to scare off a pack of coyotes though. A guy up here posted a video of coyotes surrounding his logging truck when he was strapping the logs down. He climbed on top of the load and crawled down from the roof of the truck into the cab through the open window to drive off. He had his cell phone with him. Those coyotes were not scaring off either.

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: Backagain
a reply to: infolurker
... Biden is wrong. Now if he said AR15, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I think to buy that type of weapon, there should be requirements. Clearly I believe, in the 2nd amendment, if I didn't We wouldn't have guns.

But there is that slippery slope thing. First they introduce requirements to purchase an AR15. Then they establish conditions to own one. Then once they have everyone registered, they take them away when they want. Now they have a precedent and start to come after all the other guns you own.

Liberty does not die in one massive gasp; the life is squeezed out of her bit by bit until she finally takes her last breath and passes quietly into the darkness.

For evidence, see California. Gun rights have been slowly eroded over many years. They couldn't do it all at once. It's always "okay, the last 20 laws didn't help, but the next one will save lives!" Then they blame neighboring states that aren't as tough on guns.

Which is ironic from people who are largely against securing the U.S. border. Even if you banned and confiscated here, they'd just pour in from Mexico.

No logical thought has gone into these positions.

a reply to: infolurker

We are getting pretty close to an Australian style government. Makes sense that they would want o own all information and a disarmed populace. I guess they want us limited to .22's with five round limit.

You had better remind them that Americans vote guns! Once the truth ministry has a go at the guns it may be over.

We have California gas prices. Tent cities probably coming to a town near you to. I guess it makes since that the shall not be infringed part of the second amendment would be pooped on as well. The internet and the free exchange of information is too big of a threat as is an armed populace. That populace is right now the largest armed force on the planet though and maybe folks should get organized. Shall not be infringed is not open to interpretation is it? I wouldn't trust this admin or an recent one that I can think of any further than I could throw it. Maybe its time to run some real men and ditch the red, blue BS.

All should see this link.
ago.mo.gov...

a reply to: Donkey_Dean

We have California gas prices. Tent cities probably coming to a town near you to. I guess it makes since that the Shall not be infringed part of the second amendment would be pooped on as well. The internet and the free exchange of information is too big of a threat as is an armed populace

While politicians have armed private security protecting them but are ignoring the concerns of the people.