And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

reply to post by ketsuko


so you think you are God? you can see the future?

reply to post by beezzer


and yet you fail to ignore that a vast majority of mass shootings in this nation have been done by people who legally purchased their guns.

when does someone stop being a 'law abiding citizen"?
when they plan to go on a shooting spree?
when they buy the gun?
when they amass thousands of rounds of ammo?
or when they pull the trigger?

i guess it is ok in your book to let people plan and prepare for mass shootings.

reply to post by teslahowitzer


I hope I'm right as well. I don't really think they can take our firearms, it would be too difficult. They could take our ammo or tax to make it too expensive to buy. Thus far I don't see that either. Last I checked, yesterday at around 1020am, 5.56 was readily available and fairly inexpensive.

That said, the post on California confiscating arms from people deemed no longer authorized to possess is very scary! That really made me sit up and take notice. When the government can deem someone too mentally incompetent to possess a firearm, then no one can possess a firearm.

reply to post by AntiNWO


The ACA did NOT need to be ratified by the States, it only needed a simple majority to pass...which it got. Comparing the passage of the ACA to a Constitutional Amendment is comparing Apples and Planets, not even close. That is a try at a scare tactic to make the sheeple afraid. To even compare the two is ridiculous!

I am not a supporter of the ACA nor am I a supporter of amending the Constitution to abolish the 2nd or any other amendment. The States could not be bullied into it as it would create an uproar amongst the millions that own firearms. The FED understand this and do NOT want an uprising. The simplest way to harm gun owners would be to increase taxes on ammunition, like they did to tobacco, but I don't even see that passing as the NRA is one of the strongest lobbies in America.

reply to post by rickm



There are over 300 MILLION firearms in private ownership in the United States, and yet only a few thousand gun crimes per year, explain to me why those remaining several hundred million firearms and their owners should be restricted because of the crimes of a few?


America has become a land of cowards and government reliant welfare whores, there always someone or something to blame other than those responsible.

Crimes happen regardless of laws, and punishing those who did not commit a crime is not the answer. It's a copout for cowards and government whores.

reply to post by C0le


Who is being punished? Not me. In most states, your only limitation is full auto (total stupid) and the 3 round burst (which is what the military uses). OK, for a mere citizen, it is one pull, one shot. But last time I checked, those zombies don't move too fast.

Now if you have a felony record or a restraining order, call me crazy, but I rather you were not armed.

Feltrick
reply to post by teslahowitzer

 

I hope I'm right as well. I don't really think they can take our firearms, it would be too difficult. They could take our ammo or tax to make it too expensive to buy. Thus far I don't see that either. Last I checked, yesterday at around 1020am, 5.56 was readily available and fairly inexpensive.

That said, the post on California confiscating arms from people deemed no longer authorized to possess is very scary! That really made me sit up and take notice. When the government can deem someone too mentally incompetent to possess a firearm, then no one can possess a firearm.

California has been dearming people with felonies for years. This is nothing new. Democrat or Republican governor, same deal. I suggest if you want to keep your guns, don't commit any felonies. Seems simple to me.

Seriously, somebody gets out of prison for armed robbery. Why would anyone want that clown to have a gun?

reply to post by intrepid

Tell me how you control the access to guns to mentally disturbed individuals without checks?

you can't. the government already has plenty of guns and they are the craziest, most extreme frickers on the planet.

you may dismiss the above as a cheeky response, but it is no such thing. it is sincerity.

Bob Sholtz
reply to post by intrepid

 

Tell me how you control the access to guns to mentally disturbed individuals without checks?

you can't. the government already has plenty of guns and they are the craziest, most extreme frickers on the planet.

you may dismiss the above as a cheeky response, but it is no such thing. it is sincerity.

Then again, I never trusted the broken shift key crowd to provide factual information.

Who specifically in the government is mentally disturbed? Also, how did you access their private medical records to acquire knowledge of said diagnosis. Further, is your medical degree appropriate to determine their validity to own firearms?

reply to post by gariac

Then again, I never trusted the broken shift key crowd to provide factual information. Who specifically in the government is mentally disturbed? Also, how did you access their private medical records to acquire knowledge of said diagnosis. Further, is your medical degree appropriate to determine their validity to own firearms?

broken shift key? it works quite fine, i do not understand your meaning.

who specifically? pretty much these guys en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org... combined with the president, his cabinet members and those that he has appointed. oh yes, and the supreme court justices.

their actions suggest narcissism, sadistic tendencies, addictive personalities, egotism, et al.

your next question will be "go through the list and point out how each exhibits those tendencies", to which i will simply direct you to the bills they have passed, the current state of law(lessness) in america, and their personal affairs involving drug allegations and scandals of all kinds.

reply to post by intrepid


Because the 2nd Amendment states very clearly, shall not be infringed. But I don't expect you to understand it.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Because policy creep is still infringement.

reply to post by theantediluvian

I don't support he NRA. And I am heavily involved within the Firearms industry.

It is infringement, any way you look at it.

reply to post by beezzer


Sadly these days, people confuse true freedom with Govt provided fake protections.

People that have been sold the whole "Life protection" from the Govt will never get the idea of being truly free.

Freedom comes with risk. Some here, would trade those risks and hand over freedoms to do so. And happily I may add.

reply to post by intrepid


The gun is not the problem. The person is.

Yet, I have not seen any method that is proven to control a person. Just look at criminals.

You will gleefully trade freedom for fake security. Good luck with that.

theantediluvian
It doesn't say anything about individuals or offer a definition of "arms" either.

*sigh* please read the 2nd amendment again.

theantediluvian
Strictly speaking, the framers could at that point have only been referring to muskets, swords and the like since nothing else existed.

There was plenty of other "arms" during that period. Go and actually research this and come back.

theantediluvian

It certainly doesn't say "any weapon ever to be created by man" either?

So, because it doesn't day any weapon, it is limiting to the person??? Ah, I see the problem here. You think that the Constitution is just a guideline for the Govt.
Yep, gotta love the Progressive view of things.
It doesn't outline specific weapons either. So....................

theantediluvian
Given your purposefully simplistic interpretation, the 2nd amendment could be used to justify ownership of nuclear weapons by individuals.

Please, go back and actually learn what "arms" is defined as. This is not only a tired argument from Anti-Gun rights people, it has been blown out of the water here numerous times.

reply to post by PsykoOps


So says the foreigner.........

You really have no clue as to the US and its laws.

What I would like to know is this. How come everything else goes under scrutiny when it is deemed more dangerous than helpful...is it banned.

Guns have proven to be more dangerous than helpful..so why all the fuss when it is brought up.

More stories of guns killing or injuring than actually helping anyone there.

reply to post by Onslaught2996


Yeah, okay then. Sure sure.


I guess since something is dangerous, it should therefor be banned.

Better lock up all the knives and other sharp things.

Onslaught2996
What I would like to know is this. How come everything else goes under scrutiny when it is deemed more dangerous than helpful...is it banned.

Guns have proven to be more dangerous than helpful..so why all the fuss when it is brought up.

More stories of guns killing or injuring than actually helping anyone there.

Alcohol is absolutely more harmful than helpful, just look at history to see what happens when banned.

In an ideal world this is a great idea, also in an ideal world communism is the best form of government. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and there are far too many guns out there for a ban to be effective.

When guns are outlawed, the outlaws will have guns and law abiding citizens will be left defenseless.