# Registration of firearms leads to confiscation



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business. 
Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation 
So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment 

How else can we have well regulated militias?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


Firearms do you no good when they in sitting at the police department. And just one step away from you no longer need your firearm we will destory it on this date.
But registering your firearms is a contribution to the second amendment
"Who is the Militia I ask? The whole people." George Mason  well regulated = in working order as to be expected


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Firearms do you no good when they in sitting at the police department. And just one step away from you no longer need your firearm we will destory it on this date.
> But registering your firearms is a contribution to the second amendment
> "Who is the Militia I ask? The whole people." George Mason  well regulated = in working order as to be expected



How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?

Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?

Why do you hate America?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> "Who is the Militia I ask? The whole people." George Mason well regulated = in working order as to be expected



How can your militia be in good working order if you don’t know who is in it and what type of weapon they will bring?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?
> 
> Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Why do you hate America?


The only time you need to know is when you see them. Why are you a fascist pig?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can your militia be in good working order if you don’t know who is in it and what type of weapon they will bring?


The whole people are the militia


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


too bad the second isn't about militias isn't it?


----------



## Esdraelon (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


If you KNEW that a government effort to confiscate firearms would lead to tens of thousands of deaths in that process, would you still think it was the correct move?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


No dumb ass. Guns are not allowed in special sensative areas. The NYPD telling them the guns have to be kept somewhere else, and giving them the option of storing them for the business owners. The business owners are free to store them any other place that is legal. They just can't keep them in those sensitive areas. 
From your link
*The letter reads:* “_If this applies to your place of business, please bring your applicable firearm(s) to your local precinct in order for it to be safeguarded for you. Alternatively, you may bring your firearm(s) to another location where you are lawfully allowed to possess and store it. Lastly, you may contract with a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL) to store the firearm(s) for you – they may, however, charge for this service.”_


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?



There's not a gun-grabber alive who wants gun registration for that reason and you know it...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can your militia be in good working order if you don’t know who is in it and what type of weapon they will bring?



Worked out pretty well back in 1775...


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only time you need to know is when you see them. Why are you a fascist pig?



Not much of a well regulated militia…

Suppose my town is concerned about a Commie invasion that we have to repel. 
We need to form a well regulated militia to fend off the Commie Horde 

How can we do that if we don’t know who in town owns guns and what type of guns they have?
We can’t fight off the Commies with a bunch of .22s


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> There's not a gun-grabber alive who wants gun registration for that reason and you know it...



Why do you hate the Second Amendment?

Don’t you think well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?

Do you hate Freedom?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Not much of a well regulated militia…
> 
> Suppose my town is concerned about a Commie invasion that we have to repel.
> We need to form a well regulated militia to fend off the Commie Horde
> ...


And keeping your firearms at a location you must go to to bear is an infringement


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why do you hate the Second Amendment?
> 
> Don’t you think well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Do you hate Freedom?


You hate the second amendment 
You hate America 
You're a fascist pig.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why do you hate the Second Amendment?
> 
> Don’t you think well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Do you hate Freedom?



You're a fuckin' idiot.

Yes, a well-regulated militia _is _necessary. We had one back in the 1770's and, guess what? No gun registration.

Moron gun grabbers like you always want more gun laws (which never impact criminals, by the way) and say it's in the name of safety. Well, registering guns makes no one safer. Not even a little bit.

Convince me otherwise...


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> And keeping your firearms at a location you must go to to bear is an infringement


You'll have to argue with state law over that. I thought you were in favor of states having authority.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You hate the second amendment
> You hate America
> You're a fascist pig.



No, he's just a troll. He knows there's no valid argument in favor of gun registration, so he just belches up his verbal diarrhea so he can feel like he's got something of interest to say...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

I notice rightwinger  is not denying that registration leads to confiscation.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


Bullshit...lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You'll have to argue with state law over that. I thought you were in favor of states having authority.


State law is not law of the land nor does it supercede the US Cinstitution


----------



## Hellbilly (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


In my awesome Liberal state gun registration is not required.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Not much of a well regulated militia…
> 
> Suppose my town is concerned about a Commie invasion that we have to repel.
> We need to form a well regulated militia to fend off the Commie Horde
> ...



LOL!

Gosh, yeah, I guess you can't simply ask people "What kind of guns do you have?"

I truly suspect that would be far too burdensome for someone so intellectually challenged as you...


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?
> 
> Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Why do you hate America?


The 2nd Amendment doesn't have shit to do with forming a militia.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> You're a fuckin' idiot.
> 
> Yes, a well-regulated militia _is _necessary. We had one back in the 1770's and, guess what? No gun registration.
> 
> ...


Your childish MAGA mind is made up, and facts would just confuse you. I would tell you to quit whining, but we both know you aren't capable of that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> In my awesome Liberal state gun registration is not required.


But registration leads to confiscation


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> In my awesome Liberal state gun registration is not required.



Nor is it in Florida.

I own 49 firearms. Not a single one of them is registered with the state.

As it should be...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Your childish MAGA mind is made up, and facts would just confuse you. I would tell you to quit whining, but we both know you aren't capable of that.


Make America Great Again


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Your childish MAGA mind is made up, and facts would just confuse you. I would tell you to quit whining, but we both know you aren't capable of that.



LOL!!! I'm hardly "MAGA", asswipe.

Then again, I would imagine that you view anyone who owns scary guns is MAGA, amirite?

Are you able to explain how gun registration helps make people safer? If you can't, it's okay.

Because no one can. You're just too big a pussy to admit you can't do it...


----------



## Hellbilly (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> But registration leads to confiscation


You already said that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> State law is not law of the land nor does it supercede the US Cinstitution


I'll remind you of your remark the next time you rant about states rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> You already said that.


So you agree


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Not much of a well regulated militia…
> 
> Suppose my town is concerned about a Commie invasion that we have to repel.
> We need to form a well regulated militia to fend off the Commie Horde
> ...


When they report for duty, you'll find out what weapons they have.


----------



## Hellbilly (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So you agree


I don’t really care if it does or not. In my opinion the fewer guns in the hands of white folks the better.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Make America Great Again


Making Attorneys Get Attorneys


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> too bad the second isn't about militias isn't it?


Dude!
It is LITERALLY the FIRST four words of 2A!!!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


This is a lie.

There is nothing in the letter that references or authorizes ‘confiscation’ – business owners retain ownership of their firearms.

The letter clearly states that business owners may relocate their firearms to another venue – again, retaining ownership and possession.

More lies and demagoguery from the dishonest right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'll remind you of your remark the next time you rant about states rights.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. 
I have no problem with states rights unless that state is trying to supercede it authority. And since the second amendment is delegated to the United States by the Constitution it's not a states right


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> LOL!!! I'm hardly "MAGA", asswipe.
> 
> Then again, I would imagine that you view anyone who owns scary guns is MAGA, amirite?
> 
> ...


Do you oppose registering fully automatic machine guns?  What about RPGs?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> There is nothing in the letter that references or authorizes ‘confiscation’ – business owners retain ownership of their firearms.
> 
> ...


Bring  your firearms to the police or have them stored at a FFL if they don't do that what will happen?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you oppose registering fully automatic machine guns?  What about RPGs?


I oppose the NFA it must be repealed


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> If you KNEW that a government effort to confiscate firearms would lead to tens of thousands of deaths in that process, would you still think it was the correct move?


Another lie.

Obviously you didn’t bother to read the letter.

*“Alternatively, you may bring your firearm(s) to another location where you are lawfully allowed to possess and store it.” *

No firearms are being ‘confiscated.’


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I don’t really care if it does or not. In my opinion the fewer guns in the hands of white folks the better.


So you believe your guns are safe?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Another lie.
> 
> Obviously you didn’t bother to read the letter.
> 
> ...


If you don't follow the directions of the NYPD what will happen?


----------



## skews13 (Sep 24, 2022)

Spoken


bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only time you need to know is when you see them. Why are you a fascist pig?


 like a true criminal. All soldiers, police and national guard weapons are clearly displayed, and registered. Only a criminal hides their weapons until they use them.

So much for responsible legal ownership of firearms. I won’t even try to explain how the gun is already registered with the state  police, when it was purchased, and the background check was done.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Dude!
> It is LITERALLY the FIRST four words of 2A!!!!


No where does the 2nd Amendment say anything about anyone having to be a member of the militia to own guns


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> State law is not law of the land nor does it supercede the US Cinstitution


No one said it did.

The law prohibiting firearms in sensitive places is perfectly Constitutional, in no manner in violation of the Second Amendment:

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, *or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings*, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”









						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## Hellbilly (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So you believe your guns are safe?


Yep


----------



## okfine (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> LOL!
> 
> Gosh, yeah, I guess you can't simply ask people "What kind of guns do you have?"
> 
> I truly suspect that would be far too burdensome for someone so intellectually challenged as you...


It's a valid question when it comes to determining what ammo will be needed.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 24, 2022)

None of my weapons are registered except
 my 2 Rottweilers.



Shhhhh.
Don't tell them they're part Maltese


----------



## ClaireH (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?
> 
> Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Why do you hate America?


Lol your obvious assumption that any thug walking around with unregistered or stolen guns, including guns with serial numbers erased to be used like a burner phone hard to trace, is ludicrous. Requiring honest folks to register their guns while the criminals at large couldn’t care less about legalities and the like isn’t even rational.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bring  your firearms to the police or have them stored at a FFL if they don't do that what will happen?


Obviously you didn’t bother to read the letter, either, in your reckless, irresponsible rush to propagate your lie.

From the letter:

*“Alternatively, you may bring your firearm(s) to another location where you are lawfully allowed to possess and store it.” *

Or you did read the letter and decided to ignore the facts and post a lie anyway, typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.

No firearms are being ‘confiscated’ – the registration of firearms does not result in ‘confiscation’ – the thread premise is a lie; this is just more lies and demagoguery about guns from the right.


----------



## BlackSand (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> If you don't follow the directions of the NYPD what will happen?


.

They are simply ignoring the ambiguity of referring to something as _"Lawfully Allowed" ..._
In a circumstance where the reason it is used is already based in an attempt to further circumvent a Constitutionally Protected Right.

It's a completely ignorant rebuttal to present the exception of what is Lawfully Allowed ...
In a circumstance that might suggest any protection for your rights, because they are changing the current law in the first place.

They might as well say something as stupid as ...
"We have no desire to make you do something that isn't unlawful while we are already in the middle of writing this new Law" ...  


*It's pretending there is some meaning in "lawfully allowed" in a circumstance,
when all they are going to have to do is write another law to restrict that.*

.​


----------



## the other mike (Sep 24, 2022)

ClaireH said:


> Lol your obvious assumption that any thug walking around with unregistered or stolen guns, including guns with serial numbers erased to be used like a burner phone hard to trace, is ludicrous. Requiring honest folks to register their guns while the criminals at large couldn’t care less about legalities and the like isn’t even rational.


He's talking about the army of the future since all the good soldiers are quitting or being discharged for not taking the vaccine.


----------



## ClaireH (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'll remind you of your remark the next time you rant about states rights.


Please do, BD. I’ll be watching for that post as well because a large majority of us state rights supporters do not place the US Constitution under state rights. Source your assumption or stay on the porch.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 24, 2022)

ClaireH said:


> Please do, BD. I’ll be watching for that post as well because a large majority of us state rights supporters do not place the US Constitution under state rights. Source your assumption or stay on the porch.


Shhhhhh.
Don't piss off the feds..... they're liable to unleash the DEA  and close all our pot stores.

87,000 armed IRS ?
Try to guess how many of the DEA, FBI , DHS has.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Spoken
> 
> like a true criminal. All soldiers, police and national guard weapons are clearly displayed, and registered. Only a criminal hides their weapons until they use them.
> 
> So much for responsible legal ownership of firearms. I won’t even try to explain how the gun is already registered with the state  police, when it was purchased, and the background check was done.


The weapons you listed all belong to the government...lol


----------



## skews13 (Sep 24, 2022)

ClaireH said:


> Lol your obvious assumption that any thug walking around with unregistered or stolen guns, including guns with serial numbers erased to be used like a burner phone hard to trace, is ludicrous. Requiring honest folks to register their guns while the criminals at large couldn’t care less about legalities and the like isn’t even rational.



Those legalities are what separates you from the criminals. It’s not like you can tell the difference between a gun that is registered or not. That legal one you use is not any less effective because it was purchased legally.

So I guess using your logic, if some fool decides to drive his vehicle on a public road at 125 miles per hour. You should be able to do the same, because if criminals that drive wrecklessly aren’t going abide by the speed limit, why should you have to, right?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No dumb ass. Guns are not allowed in special sensative areas. The NYPD telling them the guns have to be kept somewhere else, and giving them the option of storing them for the business owners. The business owners are free to store them any other place that is legal. They just can't keep them in those sensitive areas.
> From your link
> *The letter reads:* “_If this applies to your place of business, please bring your applicable firearm(s) to your local precinct in order for it to be safeguarded for you. Alternatively, you may bring your firearm(s) to another location where you are lawfully allowed to possess and store it. Lastly, you may contract with a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL) to store the firearm(s) for you – they may, however, charge for this service.”_


The only problem with your statement is that the new law makes pretty much the whole state a “special sensitive area”.  That’s why it will be overturned as soon as anyone can get it in front of a judge.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> Yep


I'm sure those time square business owners thought the same thing


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.
> I have no problem with states rights unless that state is trying to supercede it authority. And since the second amendment is delegated to the United States by the Constitution it's not a states right


It's perfectly legal for states to have their own gun laws, and restrict their possesion and usage as they see fit. The wide range of differing gun laws among the states is proof of that. New York chose to designate some areas as sensitive, and not allow gun possession within those areas. Get over it.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'll remind you of your remark the next time you rant about states rights.


Regulating firearms isn't a right that states have.


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms



Good.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> They are simply ignoring the ambiguity of referring to something as _"Lawfully Allowed" ..._
> In a circumstance where the reason it is used is already based in an attempt to further circumvent a Constitutionally Protected Right.
> ...


Actually, this is a completely ignorant post and a lie.

There is no attempt to ‘circumvent’ a Constitutionally protected right – ‘further’ or otherwise.

That conservatives don’t like or agree with a given firearm regulatory measure doesn’t mean that measure is ‘un-Constitutional.’


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You'll have to argue with state law over that. I thought you were in favor of states having authority.


You had a cow over abortion being turned over to the states and it’s not a constitutional right.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I oppose the NFA it must be repealed


Of course you do. More proof you're just another childish gun nut.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Spoken
> 
> like a true criminal. All soldiers, police and national guard weapons are clearly displayed, and registered. Only a criminal hides their weapons until they use them.
> 
> So much for responsible legal ownership of firearms. I won’t even try to explain how the gun is already registered with the state  police, when it was purchased, and the background check was done.


So why did the founders of America hide their firearms from the government?


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms



It's called State's Rights.  Individual States have the right to regulate firearms.  This is NOT a federal law.  It is State Law.


----------



## BlackSand (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, this is a completely ignorant post and a lie.
> 
> There is no attempt to ‘circumvent’ a Constitutionally protected right – ‘further’ or otherwise.
> 
> That conservatives don’t like or agree with a given firearm regulatory measure doesn’t mean that measure is ‘un-Constitutional.’


.

Bullshit ... Shall not be infringed ... Does not mean _"unless we write another law and try to weasel our way around the protection"._
Just stop ... No More ... Not an inch.

.​


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Of course you do. More proof you're just another childish gun nut.


Can't make your argument sling an irrelevant insult


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


Dont babble nonsense just because you are embarrassed by the brazen lib gun grabbers


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

bravoactual said:


> It's called State's Rights.  Individual States have the right to regulate firearms.  This is NOT a federal law.  It is State Law.


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people."
Nope the second amendment is delegated to the United States by the Constitution. It's not a states right issue


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> New York chose to designate some areas as sensitive, and not allow gun possession within those areas.


In accordance with the Constitution and Second Amendment.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you oppose registering fully automatic machine guns?  What about RPGs?



Well, seeing as fully automatic machine guns are hardly readily available to the general public, requiring them to be registered would be nothing more than a liberal feel-good measure which would accomplish nothing. 

RPG's?

Now you're just being stupid.

How would requiring gun registration make anyone safer?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, this is a completely ignorant post and a lie.
> 
> There is no attempt to ‘circumvent’ a Constitutionally protected right – ‘further’ or otherwise.
> 
> That conservatives don’t like or agree with a given firearm regulatory measure doesn’t mean that measure is ‘un-Constitutional.’


Explain what will happen if you do not do as the NYPD directed?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In accordance with the Constitution and Second Amendment.


Show those words


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> The only problem with your statement is that the new law makes pretty much the whole state a “special sensitive area”.  That’s why it will be overturned as soon as anyone can get it in front of a judge.


I have no idea what areas are included or excluded. I'm discussing whether it's legal for such areas to exist.  Whether certain areas should or shouldn't be included is another discussion.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Another lie.
> 
> Obviously you didn’t bother to read the letter.
> 
> ...



How would possessing and storing it at another location be any different than me possessing it and storing it in my home?

If someone's breaking into my home, my firearm does me absolutely no good if I don't have immediate access to it...


----------



## ClaireH (Sep 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Those legalities are what separates you from the criminals. It’s not like you can tell the difference between a gun that is registered or not. That legal one you use is not any less effective because it was purchased legally.
> 
> So I guess using your logic, if some fool decides to drive his vehicle on a public road at 125 miles per hour. You should be able to do the same, because if criminals that drive wrecklessly aren’t going abide by the speed limit, why should you have to, right?


Don’t play your word salad game Skews. Readers, who’ve been here longer than a month, are aware of your “posting style” shall we say of attempting to change another poster’s words and other weak posturing tactics.

My words: gun registration will not reduce criminal activity by all thugs who will continue to use their guns to commit crimes. BTW- I rarely use the descriptor “all” but in this case it’s most logical. I am sticking by my words without any use for your BS that I wrote anything about justifying crimes. Play your game elsewhere -hey, how about engaging with other word salad posters, say for instance BullDog? lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Obviously you didn’t bother to read the letter, either, in your reckless, irresponsible rush to propagate your lie.
> 
> From the letter:
> 
> ...


What will happen if you don't do as the NYPD directed? What will happen?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Regulating firearms isn't a right that states have.


So how do you explain such widely ranging gun regulations between the states?


----------



## AMart (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


Just checked it's not in the 2nd amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> How would possessing and storing it at another location be any different than me possessing it and storing it in my home?
> 
> If someone's breaking into my home, my firearm does me absolutely no good if I don't have immediate access to it...


He's dodging the question what will happen if you don't do has the NYPD directed what will happen?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So how do you explain such widely ranging gun regulations between the states?


They're unconstitutional


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What will happen if you don't do as the NYPD directed? What will happen?



Oh for fuck sake.  What if a bear was to come.


----------



## Hellbilly (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I'm sure those time square business owners thought the same thing


I doubt I’ll lose any sleep over it. Guns are just one method of self defense.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So how do you explain such widely ranging gun regulations between the states?


They're unconstitutional and more of them are getting struck down all the time.


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No dumb ass. *Guns are not allowed in special sensative areas.* The NYPD telling them the guns have to be kept somewhere else, and giving them the option of storing them for the business owners. The business owners are free to store them any other place that is legal. They just can't keep them in those sensitive areas.
> From your link
> *The letter reads:* “_If this applies to your place of business, please bring your applicable firearm(s) to your local precinct in order for it to be safeguarded for you. Alternatively, you may bring your firearm(s) to another location where you are lawfully allowed to possess and store it. Lastly, you may contract with a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL) to store the firearm(s) for you – they may, however, charge for this service.”_


Do criminals respect your touchy-feely “special sensitive areas” ?

Hum?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I doubt I’ll lose any sleep over it. Guns are just one method of self defense.


Move along then


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


Of course it does . That's why democrats want registration so bad , they want your second amendment taken away. Why? They hate America and Americans.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Bullshit ... Shall not be infringed ... Does not mean _"unless we write another law and try to weasel our way around the protection"._
> Just stop ... No More ... Not an inch.
> ...


The Supreme Court has never ruled that weapon prohibitions in selected venues are 'un-Constitutional.' 

In fact, the _Bruen _Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of regulating firearms in sensitive places:

‘In its ruling, the Court affirmed _Heller’s_ doctrine of “sensitive places,” and specified that polling places fit in that category. Each of the justices agreed that it is “settled” that there are “‘sensitive places’ where carrying guns could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment.’









						Understanding the Supreme Court's Gun Control Decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen | League of Women Voters
					

On June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, overturning a New York gun safety law. The Court ruled that New York’s law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.




					www.lwv.org
				




As a fact of law, therefore, no Constitutionally protected rights are being ‘circumvented’ – to claim otherwise is a lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No dumb ass. Guns are not allowed in special sensative areas. The NYPD telling them the guns have to be kept somewhere else, and giving them the option of storing them for the business owners. The business owners are free to store them any other place that is legal. They just can't keep them in those sensitive areas.
> From your link
> *The letter reads:* “_If this applies to your place of business, please bring your applicable firearm(s) to your local precinct in order for it to be safeguarded for you. Alternatively, you may bring your firearm(s) to another location where you are lawfully allowed to possess and store it. Lastly, you may contract with a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL) to store the firearm(s) for you – they may, however, charge for this service.”_


So regerstrayion of firearms leads to confiscation.  
City blocks are not sensitive places 
Prisons are sensitive places. Courtrooms are sensitive places


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


Interesting.  And now they're trying to get folks to register something else.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................






						The People's Garden
					

Watch the People’s Gardens Grow!




					www.usda.gov


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court has never ruled that weapon prohibitions in selected venues are 'un-Constitutional.'
> 
> In fact, the _Bruen _Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of regulating firearms in sensitive places:
> 
> ...


What is the logic behind this prohibition?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What will happen if you don't do as the NYPD directed? What will happen?


In addition to being a lie, your thread premise fails as a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court has never ruled that weapon prohibitions in selected venues are 'un-Constitutional.'
> 
> In fact, the _Bruen _Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of regulating firearms in sensitive places:
> 
> ...


Thomas is going to spank your ass again. This too will he rule on


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In addition to being a lie, your thread premise fails as a slippery slope fallacy.


What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No where does the 2nd Amendment say anything about anyone having to be a member of the militia to own guns


Actually if you REALLY want to go down that road....the Second Amendnent doesn't say anything about anyone actually "owning" guns anywhere in it at all.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> You had a cow over abortion being turned over to the states and it’s not a constitutional right.


The federal government didn't lose the right to regulate abortion. It just chose to not exercize it at this time.  Removal of overriding federal guidelines is currently allowing states to do as they will. At some time, I believe the federal government will reassert it's supremacy and override all the current state laws. No new authority was granted to the states. They are just taking advantage of a temporary lack of federal guidance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

bravoactual said:


> Oh for fuck sake.  What if a bear was to come.


So I accept that as yes registration does lead to confiscation


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Can't make your argument sling an irrelevant insult


It was a provable statement of fact. Your choice if you take it as an insult.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Actually if you REALLY want to go down that road....the Second Amendnent doesn't say anything about anyone actually "owning" guns anywhere in it at all.


It does say the right to KEEP and BEAR.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> It was a provable statement of fact. Your choice if you take it as an insult.


No it wasn't the NFA is an infringement and would have been ruled unconstitutional if Jack Miller had shown up at the federal appeal of his case he originally won.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, seeing as fully automatic machine guns are hardly readily available to the general public, requiring them to be registered would be nothing more than a liberal feel-good measure which would accomplish nothing.
> 
> RPG's?
> 
> ...


Fully automatic machine guns were readily available before regulation, and would still be readily available without regulation. Removing fully automatic machine guns from the street did make us safer.


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> They're unconstitutional



States have the right to regulate firearms.  

The Constitution of The United States of America.

Amendment X 

*The Powers Not Delegated To the United States By The Constitution, Nor Prohibited By ItTo The States, Are Reserved To The States Respectively, Or To The People*.

The State of New York has the right, under the Constitution to regulate firearms.  The statement made by the OP regarding the Constitutionality of the New York State Law is factaully incorrect...I.E.- A LIE.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Obviously you didn’t bother to read the letter, either, in your reckless, irresponsible rush to propagate your lie.
> 
> From the letter:
> 
> ...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Alternatively, you may bring your firearm(s) to another location where you are lawfully allowed to possess and store it.”



such as?

Safety depot box in a bank?

Trunk of your car?

gun safe in your closet?


somewhere else you can't get your hands on it in an emergency?


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It does say the right to KEEP and BEAR.


But not specifically to "own" right?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> But not specifically to "own" right?


Fine I'll take a free gun and keep and bear it. 
You do realize your response sounds desperately ignorant?


----------



## ClaireH (Sep 24, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Interesting.  And now they're trying to get folks to register something else.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoa. CCP knows this thoroughly as well that government entities controlling the food lines control the world. The world has the means and sources to feed entire populations living below poverty rate, but fail to do so because there is no profit in distribution.

Registering personal gardens, sold under the printed statements about “helping communities”. Are these privately owned gardens being listed publicly upon registration? No thanks to collectivism registration that enables slackers to take advantage of hard working proactive folks! Listing your address with what your garden produces? Uh, no. Any type of USDA registration should be restricted to the farmers who sign up to produce food for government affiliates.

Many leftists dream of doing the bare minimum for themselves while relying on a working subset to provide for them. Piss off! lol I account for my recent USMB evolution that has occurred over the past 6 months from the result of interactions I’ve had with various leftists on this board. Word salad professional amateurs do not help the Democrat party, yet they claim to be representatives of the party. If I were a traditional Democrat I’d be doing something about that at least on a small scale level.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> They're unconstitutional


All state gun laws are unconstitutional?


bigrebnc1775 said:


> So regerstrayion of firearms leads to confiscation.
> City blocks are not sensitive places
> Prisons are sensitive places. Courtrooms are sensitive places


Tell it to New York. They are the ones who designated which places.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> The federal government didn't lose the right to regulate abortion. It just chose to not exercize it at this time.  Removal of overriding federal guidelines is currently allowing states to do as they will. At some time, I believe the federal government will reassert it's supremacy and override all the current state laws. No new authority was granted to the states. They are just taking advantage of a temporary lack of federal guidance.


Correct.

Congress has the authority to pass legislation to protect citizens’ rights – such as the right to privacy.

Codifying the right to privacy in Federal law would invalidate state laws ‘banning’ abortion.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I doubt I’ll lose any sleep over it. Guns are just one method of self defense.





Hellbilly said:


> Guns are just one method of self defense.



God created Man.

Sam Colt made them equal.


----------



## Hellbilly (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> God created Man.


Which god?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Do criminals respect your touchy-feely “special sensitive areas” ?
> 
> Hum?


About the same as drunk drivers respect drunk driving laws, or rapists respect rape laws.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


It is not encouraged by the second amendment,

The 2A is a garuntee of an indiviuals right not a an elite group


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> They're unconstitutional


See #67


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> If you KNEW that a government effort to confiscate firearms would lead to tens of thousands of deaths in that process, would you still think it was the correct move?


WHY would the government want to confiscate personal firearms?

We need them to form well regulated militias


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> All state gun laws are unconstitutional?
> 
> Tell it to New York. They are the ones who designated which places.


I don't have to tell them anything Clearance Thomas is going to slam the hammer down again


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> See #67


And it is still incorrect


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Soupnazi630 said:


> It is not encouraged by the second amendment,
> 
> The 2A is a garuntee of an indiviuals right not a an elite group



Well regulated militias are not an elite group

They are necessary for the security of a free state


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> WHY would the government want to confiscate personal firearms?
> 
> We need them to form well regulated militias


What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Bullshit ... Shall not be infringed ... Does not mean _"unless we write another law and try to weasel our way around the protection"._
> Just stop ... No More ... Not an inch.
> ...


Wrong.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

_ibid_

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – such as “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” – neither violate the Second Amendment nor manifest as an ‘infringement’ upon the Second Amendment right.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Actually if you REALLY want to go down that road....the Second Amendnent doesn't say anything about anyone actually "owning" guns anywhere in it at all.





MagicMike said:


> .the Second Amendnent doesn't say anything about anyone actually "owning" guns anywhere in it at all.



The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and BEAR ARMS" sound familiar?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Well regulated militias are not an elite group
> 
> They are necessary for the security of a free state


The right of the people not the states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
> 
> ...


Wrong


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I notice rightwinger  is not denying that registration leads to confiscation.


Registration is essential for establishing a well regulated militia

Why do you hate the Second Amendment?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it wasn't the NFA is an infringement and would have been ruled unconstitutional if Jack Miller had shown up at the federal appeal of his case he originally won.


You bet BooBoo. That'ss the thing about if.


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> About the same as drunk drivers respect drunk driving laws, or rapists respect rape laws.


Actually, responsible citizens do not drink and drive

The law on the other hand is only aimed at the lawless

This gun grabbing ploy is aimed at the honest, responsible gun owners


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wrong


lol

Well, dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and BEAR ARMS" sound familiar?


ONLY within the context of "A well regulated (as in governed) militia"


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Fully automatic machine guns were readily available before regulation, and would still be readily available without regulation. Removing fully automatic machine guns from the street did make us safer.



Why are you afraid to answer my questions?

How would requiring gun registration make us safer?

And, if it's not to make us safer, what's the benefit of requiring registration?


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fine I'll take a free gun and keep and bear it.
> You do realize your response sounds desperately ignorant?


You don't like The Second Amendment?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Sep 24, 2022)

ClaireH said:


> Whoa. CCP knows this thoroughly as well that government entities controlling the food lines control the world. The world has the means and sources to feed entire populations living below poverty rate, but fail to do so because there is no profit in distribution.
> 
> Registering personal gardens, sold under the printed statements about “helping communities”. Are these privately owned gardens being listed publicly upon registration? No thanks to collectivism registration that enables slackers to take advantage of hard working proactive folks! Listing your address with what your garden produces? Uh, no. Any type of USDA registration should be restricted to the farmers who sign up to produce food for government affiliates.
> 
> Many leftists dream of doing the bare minimum for themselves while relying on a working subset to provide for them. Piss off! lol I account for my recent USMB evolution that has occurred over the past 6 months from the result of interactions I’ve had with various leftists on this board. Word salad professional amateurs do not help the Democrat party, yet they claim to be representatives of the party. If I were a traditional Democrat I’d be doing something about that at least on a small scale level.


I planned on using my garden for community activitites involving children and the elderly and disabled and now those plans have changed.  I'm staying under the radar with my gardening AND with my canning activities.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> lol
> 
> Well, dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.


You basterzied what he actually said.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> You don't like The Second Amendment?


You don't got it


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Well regulated militias are not an elite group
> 
> They are necessary for the security of a free state


By definition yes they are.

they are a select group which only alllow carefully chosen members.


----------



## BlackSand (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
> 
> ...


.

No More means No More ... It doesn't mean keep making up new laws and pretending it is okay because you have done it before.
I did not argue against the idea of existing laws ... Just the constant attempt to further circumvent and erode the Protections that do exist as well.

Stop trying to wander through the woods in a deliberate attempt to obscure what you know you are supporting.
You know you want to infringe upon those rights ... And I don't care if you want to pretend you don't.

.​


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> ONLY within the context of "A well regulated (as in governed) militia"


sorry, junior.

Militia at that time consisted of a specific group of people..

Males, ages 16-45.

NO females, (of any age),

No males over the age of 45, (in some states, 57).

No one not sound of mind and body.

Which is why the FF gave the right to the people, not the militia,


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

okfine said:


> It's a valid question when it comes to determining what ammo will be needed.



Nonsense.

If you're a gun owner and you don't have ammunition for it, you don't have a gun. You have a hunk of metal.

Individual owners will provide their own ammunition. After all, that's how it's done now...


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I don't have to tell them anything Clearance Thomas is going to slam the hammer down again


Do you think he will have time to do that, what with him having to go visit Jenny in prison?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you think he will have time to do that, what with him having to go visit Jenny in prison?


Yes it will get taken to the courts. Once it makes it to the courts the supreme court can expedite it and by pass other courts


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Actually, responsible citizens do not drink and drive
> 
> The law on the other hand is only aimed at the lawless
> 
> This gun grabbing ploy is aimed at the honest, responsible gun owners


So how many drunk drivers do you think respect drunk driving laws. Using your logic, we should just eliminate those laws


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So how many drunk drivers do you think respect drunk driving laws. Using your logic, we should just eliminate those laws


Murder already is a crime


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


Your thread premise is a lie and most on the dishonest right are liars – particularly when it comes to the regulation of firearms.

You’ve provided no evidence that the registration of firearms results in ‘confiscation’ – that’s a lie.

Firearms in New York City are not being ‘confiscated’ – that’s another lie.

The letter included in your link (a source just as unreliable and dishonest as are conservatives) clearly states that gunowners are at liberty to relocate their firearms to another venue, retaining both possession and ownership of their firearms.

And in contempt of these facts, you continue to propagate your ridiculous lies and slippery slope fallacies.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So how many drunk drivers do you think respect drunk driving laws. Using your logic, we should just eliminate those laws



Why are you being a coward and not answering my questions?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your thread premise is a lie and most on the dishonest right are liars – particularly when it comes to the regulation of firearms.
> 
> You’ve provided no evidence that the registration of firearms results in ‘confiscation’ – that’s a lie.
> 
> ...


What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Why are you afraid to answer my questions?
> 
> How would requiring gun registration make us safer?
> 
> And, if it's not to make us safer, what's the benefit of requiring registration?


Obviously New York thinks it makes their citizens safer, and they have the legal right to impose it. They didn't even ask my opinion.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


That argument doesn't hold water.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Obviously New York thinks it makes their citizens safer, and they have the legal right to impose it. They didn't even ask my opinion.


So much for conservatives being ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights.”


----------



## Delldude (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Obviously New York thinks it makes their citizens safer, and they have the legal right to impose it. They didn't even ask my opinion.


They've got their asses kicked twice now at SCOTUS.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes it will get taken to the courts. Once it makes it to the courts the supreme court can expedite it and by pass other courts


And?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Obviously New York thinks it makes their citizens safer, and they have the legal right to impose it. They didn't even ask my opinion.



What a clumsy, cowardly dodge.

Clearly, you're too stupid to formulate an answer to the question, and you're too big a coward to simply admit that...


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Murder already is a crime


So how many murderers do you think respect our don't murder laws? Your logic would eliminate those laws too. Seems like your logic would eliminate damn near all our laws.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Why are you being a coward and not answering my questions?


Why are you being a weeny and not accepting the fact that New York has every legal right to do what they are doing?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> And?


It will be over for this infringement


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So how many murderers do you think respect our don't murder laws? Your logic would eliminate those laws too. Seems like your logic would eliminate damn near all our laws.


End murder laws let's just have anarchy


----------



## Delldude (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Why are you being a weeny and not accepting the fact that New York has every legal right to do what they are doing?


Several times before they already had 'their legal right to do so" nullified at SCOTUS.
Any reason to think it won't happen again?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Why are you being a weeny and not accepting the fact that New York has every legal right to do what they are doing?


So what will happen if the business owners do not obey the directive of the NYPD?


----------



## ClaireH (Sep 24, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> I planned on using my garden for community activitites involving children and the elderly and disabled and now those plans have changed.  I'm staying under the radar with my gardening AND with my canning activities.


Your intention to help neighbors in need was of pure motive. Please don’t let political corrupted leftists sway your personal decisions to do good in any way! Keep the good fight OPJQ! Your proactive stance is a positive because your eyes and mind are fully opened to the political spewings of those who claim to have good intentions on paper but have collective socialism as the end game plan.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your thread premise is a lie and most on the dishonest right are liars – particularly when it comes to the regulation of firearms.
> 
> You’ve provided no evidence that the registration of firearms results in ‘confiscation’ – that’s a lie.
> 
> ...


What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> What a clumsy, cowardly dodge.
> 
> Clearly, you're too stupid to formulate an answer to the question, and you're too big a coward to simply admit that...


Ok. The only question I've seen is how would registration make us safer. I have never advocated for gun registration, and I challenge you to find an example of where I did, but of course registration would make us safer in some circumstances. If a person makes a death threat, it would certainly be important to know if he had a gun registered in his name.  Finding the last legal owner of a gun used in a crime could be the first step in finding the perpetrator. There are lots of unquestionable ways a gun registry could make us safer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Ok. The only question I've seen is how would registration make us safer. I have never advocated for gun registration, and I challenge you to find an example of where I did, but of course registration would make us safer in some circumstances. If a person makes a death threat, it would certainly be important to know if he had a gun registered in his name.  Finding the last legal owner of a gun used in a crime could be the first step in finding the perpetrator. There are lots of unquestionable ways a gun registry could make us safer.


What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Why are you being a weeny and not accepting the fact that New York has every legal right to do what they are doing?



Why are you being a retard?

I've never said I don't accept that they have that right. If you believe otherwise, please point me to the post in which I state that. Otherwise, please endeavor to not be a lying scumbag.

I simply asked you how requiring the registration of guns makes anyone safer. You've been a repeated, abject failure at answering that question. You've failed repeatedly.

I've never encountered anyone who enjoys being a complete and utter failure as much as you.

You must really enjoy the taste...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> ...but of course registration would make us safer in some circumstances.



So, you admit that you advocate gun registration

Good. That's been suspected all along...



BULLDOG said:


> If a person makes a death threat, it would certainly be important to know if he had a gun registered in his name.



I own a large number of firearms, and I will never, ever, register any of them. If I threaten someone's life, and the authorities check to see if I have a gun registered in my name, they'll find bupkus.

The fact that my neighbor has his guns registered makes no one safer from my guns, now does it?



BULLDOG said:


> Finding the last legal owner of a gun used in a crime could be the first step in finding the perpetrator.



Ah, but the crime's already been committed so, again, the question of safety is moot. Requiring that a gun be registered
didn't stop the commission of the crime, and isn't that what more gun laws are supposed to do?



BULLDOG said:


> There are lots of unquestionable ways a gun registry could make us safer.



Well, let's see 'em!

Or are you unable to intelligently articulate what those "unquestionable ways" are?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> End murder laws let's just have anarchy


That's what your logic calls for.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Delldude said:


> Several times before they already had 'their legal right to do so" nullified at SCOTUS.
> Any reason to think it won't happen again?


So now you're a fortune teller. Cool.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So what will happen if the business owners do not obey the directive of the NYPD?


No idea.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> sorry, junior.
> 
> Militia at that time consisted of a specific group of people..
> 
> ...


Sounds like you just make this shit up as you go along.

But there is one good takeaway here.

The need fir CONTROL and REGULATUON built into 2A.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> That's what your logic calls for.


It's one way of getting rid of DNC cultists


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So how many drunk drivers do you think respect drunk driving laws. Using your logic, we should just eliminate those laws


Most drivers do not need a law to do the right thing

You assume that anyone with a gun is a criminal


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No idea.


You chickenshit bastard
You know exactly what will happen
Confiscation of those registered fireams


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Most drivers do not need a law to do the right thing
> 
> You assume that anyone with a gun is a criminal


He assumes everybody will be a murderer if they end murder laws


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Sep 24, 2022)

ClaireH said:


> Your intention to help neighbors in need was of pure motive. Please don’t let political corrupted leftists sway your personal decisions to do good in any way! Keep the good fight OPJQ! Your proactive stance is a positive because your eyes and mind are fully opened to the political spewings of those who claim to have good intentions on paper but have collective socialism as the end game plan.


As they say about gun registration, it's the first step in the process of confiscation.

I will not register my garden just to have its produce confiscated.  I do quietly grow plenty of extra so that I can share with those in need.  I have a wonderful handyman who works so hard and with such dedication on my property and I certainly have plans to keep his family fed, if we hit the food shortages that are predicted.  I'm planting foods that his family have requested.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So now you're a fortune teller. Cool.


History tells us so.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Delldude said:


> That argument doesn't hold water.


Only if you hate our freedom


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> As they say about gun registration, it's the first step in the process of confiscation.
> 
> I will not register my garden just to have its produce confiscated.  I do quietly grow plenty of extra so that I can share with those in need.  I have a wonderful handyman who works so hard and with such dedication on my property and I certainly have plans to keep his family fed, if we hit the food shortages that are predicted.  I'm planting foods that his family have requested.



As they say about gun registration
It is the first step to a well regulated militia


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Sounds like you just make this shit up as you go along.
> 
> But there is one good takeaway here.
> 
> The need fir CONTROL and REGULATUON built into 2A.





MagicMike said:


> Sounds like you just make this shit up as you go along.



nope, mild research into the subject.

YOu should invest some time into it, so you have an idea of what you're talking abouit.




MagicMike said:


> he need fir CONTROL and REGULATUON built into 2A.



only for militias.

No restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms mentioned in the Second.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> So, you admit that you advocate gun registration
> 
> Good. That's been suspected all along...
> 
> ...


Try harder. 
1 No I didn't advocate gun registration, but I do acknowledge it would make us safer in some instances.
2. Whether your guns are currently registered is not the issue. The question was if they were registered, would it make us safer. If you made death threats, and your guns were registered. that would make a difference.  Don't try to dodge and say some wouldn't register their guns. This is about whether registration could make us safer, not if it would in every circumstance. 
3. The crime has been committed, and the criminal is still on the street. The last known owner could be the criminal, or he could at least say when and where the gun went missing. That could help find the criminal and get him off the street before he commits another crime. 
These are all ways registration would  make us safer in some situations. Is there anything that would make us safer in every situation? Of course not.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> nope, mild research into the subject.
> 
> YOu should invest some time into it, so you have an idea of what you're talking abouit.
> 
> ...


Except for the need for being "regulated well."

It's right there IN the text!


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Most drivers do not need a law to do the right thing
> 
> You assume that anyone with a gun is a criminal


No more than drunk driving laws assume every driver is drunk.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You chickenshit bastard
> You know exactly what will happen
> Confiscation of those registered fireams


Damn bubba. You mad?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Except for the need for being "regulated well."
> 
> It's right there IN the text!





MagicMike said:


> Except for the need for being "regulated well."



Yes, little boy...

its says the militia needs to be well regulated.

It does NOT say the people need to be well regulated.

and THAT'S who the "right" was given to.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Yes, little boy...
> 
> its says the militia needs to be well regulated.
> 
> ...


It says well regulated militias need guns

We can’t regulate our militia unless we know what guns they have


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Damn bubba. You mad?


Nope but you're a chickenshit bastard for lying.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> It says well regulated militias need guns
> 
> We can’t regulate our militia unless we know what guns they have


The only ones who need to know are the members of your Militia group.  Otherwise registration leads to confiscation


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Only if you hate our freedom


You sure do


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nope but you're a chickenshit bastard for lying.


You're still funny.


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 24, 2022)

Any day now they’re going to come around and confiscate your guns.

Any day now.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Try harder.
> 1 No I didn't advocate gun registration, but I do acknowledge it would make us safer in some instances.
> 2. Whether your guns are currently registered is not the issue. The question was if they were registered, would it make us safer. If you made death threats, and your guns were registered. that would make a difference.  Don't try to dodge and say some wouldn't register their guns. This is about whether registration could make us safer, not if it would in every circumstance.
> 3. The crime has been committed, and the criminal is still on the street. The last known owner could be the criminal, or he could at least say when and where the gun went missing. That could help find the criminal and get him off the street before he commits another crime.
> These are all ways registration would  make us safer in some situations. Is there anything that would make us safer in every situation? Of course not.


How does registration make you safer? New York has those registration laws you like is New York safer?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> Any day now they’re going to come around and confiscate your guns.
> 
> Any day now.


What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How does registration make you safer? New York has those registration laws you like is New York safer?


obviously you either didn't read what I wrote, or you're too dumb to understand it. Either way, not my problem.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Try harder.
> 1 No I didn't advocate gun registration, but I do acknowledge it would make us safer in some instances.



So, you don't want us to be safer? After all, if you did, you'd advocate for registration, right?



BULLDOG said:


> 2. Whether your guns are currently registered is not the issue. The question was if they were registered, would it make us safer. If you made death threats, and your guns were registered. that would make a difference.



I see. So, instead of basing your position on reality, you want to base it on some ignorant hypothetical?

Good to know...



BULLDOG said:


> Don't try to dodge and say some wouldn't register their guns.



I'm not saying some wouldn't. I'm saying _many _wouldn't...



BULLDOG said:


> This is about whether registration could make us safer, not if it would in every circumstance.



So, in your mind, the rare instance it might help in some way is sufficient to require registration for all?



BULLDOG said:


> 3. The crime has been committed, and the criminal is still on the street. The last known owner could be the criminal, or he could at least say when and where the gun went missing. That could help find the criminal and get him off the street before he commits another crime.



Okay, so let me make sure I understand:

I own a gun. Someone breaks into my home and somehow manages to steal one of my properly secured firearms. He then goes on a killing spree and then drops of the radar. My stolen firearm is never seen again.

Where in that scenario is there a benefit to the gun being registered to me?

See, if one of my unregistered firearms is ever stolen, I'm notifying the police. I'm giving them every bit of information I can; date and time I think it was stolen, make and model, the serial number of the gun, everything. That's what a responsible gun does.



BULLDOG said:


> These are all ways registration would  make us safer in some situations. Is there anything that would make us safer in every situation? Of course not.



Sorry, but your argument is wildly unconvincing. There's nothing about what you've said which would make us any safer.

There's only one reason to require gun registration, and it's laughable when liberals try to say it's in the name of safety...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Except for the need for being "regulated well."
> 
> It's right there IN the text!


Well regulated in working order as to be expected


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> obviously you either didn't read what I wrote, or you're too dumb to understand it. Either way, not my problem.



I fully acknowledge that you think it makes us safer, but the reality is that it doesn't.

Not even a little bit...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> obviously you either didn't read what I wrote, or you're too dumb to understand it. Either way, not my problem.


I read it I called you a chickenshit bastard


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 op


BULLDOG said:


> No more than drunk driving laws assume every driver is drunk.


drunk driving laws do not put wheel locks on everone’s car

But you want to take all the guns


----------



## Delldude (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Ok. The only question I've seen is how would registration make us safer. I have never advocated for gun registration, and I challenge you to find an example of where I did, but of course registration would make us safer in some circumstances. If a person makes a death threat, it would certainly be important to know if he had a gun registered in his name.  Finding the last legal owner of a gun used in a crime could be the first step in finding the perpetrator. *There are lots of unquestionable ways a gun registry could make us safer.*


Especially the day the gov't decides to eliminate your 2nd amendment protections.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So now you're a fortune teller. Cool.


 No, I know what my rights are under the constitution, apparently you don't.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Only if you hate our freedom


Been interpreted already. And I enjoy your freedoms.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> So, you don't want us to be safer? After all, if you did, you'd advocate for registration, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok last time.
Of course I want us to be safer. I'm just not sure gun registrationis the best way to do that right now.

I'm basing it on the discussion and the question of whether registration could make us safer. It could in some circumstances.

How many wouldn't doesn't matter.  Asking if it could help assumes guns are registered. The question wasn't if some guns were registered. 

Obviously that would be one scenario where registration wouldn't help. Nothing we do will work as hoped every time. I already said that, you didn't read it?

I never tried to convince you of anything. You're a crazy gun nut. You're immune to logic. I answered your questions.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass *never going to register my firearms*


Since my license is expired I'm not going to stop for any traffic control. Those who do not obey the law are *criminals*.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I read it I called you a chickenshit bastard


Sure, but you're a babbling idiot.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 24, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> bigrebnc1775 op
> 
> drunk driving laws do not put wheel locks on everone’s car
> 
> But you want to take all the guns


link?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Ok last time.
> Of course I want us to be safer. I'm just not sure gun registrationis the best way to do that right now.
> 
> I'm basing it on the discussion and the question of whether registration could make us safer. It could in some circumstances.
> ...



You call me a "gun nut" because you're some idiot lib with no balls who's afraid of scary loud things.

Can you at least be honesty and acknowledge, if the government decided to do it, that requiring the registration of firearms could enable to confiscation of said firearms?

Because that FACT far outweighs any alleged safety benefit because, if and when the government confiscates privately owned firearms, _no one_ will be safe...


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> link?


A link to what?


----------



## Delldude (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Except for the need for being "regulated well."
> 
> It's right there IN the text!



So is this:

Amendment II​_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the_ *people* _to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm__* unconnected with service in a militia*__, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Since my license is expired I'm not going to stop for any traffic control. Those who do not obey the law are *criminals*.


Privilege versus rights.
What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Sure, but you're a babbling idiot.


What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## Delldude (Sep 24, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Since my license is expired I'm not going to stop for any traffic control. Those who do not obey the law are *criminals*.


Don't tell anyone, but I went 56 in a 55 mph zone.
I have a privilege to drive and a right to speed.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Actually if you REALLY want to go down that road....the Second Amendnent doesn't say anything about anyone actually "owning" guns anywhere in it at all.


"Keep" means own.  No wonder you fuckers can't understand the Constitution...lol


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> The federal government didn't lose the right to regulate abortion. It just chose to not exercize it at this time.  Removal of overriding federal guidelines is currently allowing states to do as they will. At some time, I believe the federal government will reassert it's supremacy and override all the current state laws. No new authority was granted to the states. They are just taking advantage of a temporary lack of federal guidance.


There weren't any Federal guidelines regarding abortion.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Delldude said:


> So is this:
> 
> Amendment II​_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the_ *people* _to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> ...


Thank you for proving my point.
As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.

It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.

Very similar to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion a constitutional "right."

Lijewise, someday a less conservative court may very well decide to overturn Heller....just like Roe.

At the end of the day it's all more about fashion than the Constitution.
Whatever is "fashionable" with the court today.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Firearms do you no good when they in sitting at the police department. And just one step away from you no longer need your firearm we will destory it on this date.
> But registering your firearms is a contribution to the second amendment
> "Who is the Militia I ask? The whole people." George Mason  well regulated = in working order as to be expected


...shall not be infringed


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.
> 
> It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.
> ...


George Mason wrote the bill of rights. Roe never was a Constitutionally protected right. Roe was judicial activism


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only ones who need to know are the members of your Militia group.  Otherwise registration leads to confiscation



Militia Group?

Don‘t you want to defend your country if we are invaded by Commies?

Your community will need to defend itself against the Commie Horde…..they need to know who to call in a time of need

Why don’t you want them to know you are armed and ready?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.
> 
> It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.
> ...


The 2nd Amendment literally says that keeping and bearing arms is "the right of the people".  That makes it an individual right just every other amendment that says "the right of the people".


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Delldude said:


> Been interpreted already. And I enjoy your freedoms.



Where has any court decided that registration is unconstitutional?


----------



## Batcat (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?
> 
> Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Why do you hate America?


The Supreme Court has ruled you DO NOT have to be a member of a militia in order to own firearms.









						Supreme Court strikes down 2nd Amendment, citing National Guard marksmanship
					

"Seriously, have you seen them shoot?”




					www.duffelblog.com
				




_
WASHINGTON — In a stunning precedent-breaking case, the Supreme Court has overturned the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment, citing poor National Guard weapons skills.

“For over 200 years, the right to ‘keep and bear arms as part of a well-ordered militia’ has stood in the 2nd amendment,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts in a rare 9-0 opinion. 

“This court debated if that clause limits gun ownership to just members of the militia, or the National Guard as it’s now called, or if all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. Given recent information, this court sees that the framers were exactly wrong. This court ruled that literally, anyone but the militia should have the right to firearms because seriously, have you seen them shoot?”

Roberts added that if he wanted to see a shot group like that, he’d throw rice at a sticky rat trap._


Now for a serious link …






						District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




_
*District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionprotects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any U.S. state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against the states.[3] This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are._


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.
> 
> It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.
> ...





MagicMike said:


> As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.



and you still don't understand the phrase, "*Keep *and Bear Arms"


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> The Supreme Court has ruled you DO NOT have to be a member of a militia in order to own firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The question at hand is ……Is Gun Registration Constitutional?

The second amendment says it is


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> sorry, junior.
> 
> Militia at that time consisted of a specific group of people..
> 
> ...


Militias were made up of members of the community

They knew who you are, what guns you had and what skills you had in case they needed to call you up.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The question at hand is ……Is Gun Registration Constitutional?
> 
> The second amendment says it is


Where exactly does the Second amendment say that? Here’s the Second Amendment. I don’t see any mention of gun registration and if it is legal or not. 

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._

By the way gun registration is ILLEGAL in Florida.



			Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine
		


_790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
(b) The Legislature intends through the provisions of this section to:
1. Protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. Protect the privacy rights of law-abiding firearm owners.
(2) PROHIBITIONS.—No state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of such state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, shall knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms._


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Militia Group?
> 
> Don‘t you want to defend your country if we are invaded by Commies?
> 
> ...


The commies are here


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Militias were made up of members of the community
> 
> They knew who you are, what guns you had and what skills you had in case they needed to call you up.


And you don't have a need to know


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


Your thread premise is a lie and most on the dishonest right are liars – particularly when it comes to the regulation of firearms.

Conservatives propagate all manner of lies and demagoguery – about guns being ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> It says well regulated militias need guns
> 
> We can’t regulate our militia unless we know what guns they have


Which goes to the fact that there are no ‘militias.’

‘Militias’ exist solely as authorized by government – armed private citizens alone cannot declare themselves a ‘militia.’

Private armed citizens are subject to the same Federal. State, and local firearm regulatory measures.

Private armed citizens are not entitled to possess the same weapons as a state’s national guard or the Federal military.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Which goes to the fact that there are no ‘militias.’
> 
> ‘Militias’ exist solely as authorized by government – armed private citizens alone cannot declare themselves a ‘militia.’
> 
> ...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Private armed citizens are not entitled to possess the same weapons as a state’s national guard or the Federal military.




Since when?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Where exactly does the Second amendment say that? Here’s the Second Amendment. I don’t see any mention of gun registration and if it is legal or not.
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> ...



_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,_

Registering guns is necessary to maintain your well regulated militia

How do you regulate your militia without knowing where the guns are


----------



## Batcat (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,_
> 
> Registering guns is necessary to maintain your well regulated militia
> 
> How do you regulate your militia without knowing where the guns are


Once again you do not have to be part of a militia to exercise your Second Amendment right to own firearms according to rulings by the Supreme Court. 

Rules and regulations for militias in colonial times do not apply to gun registration today. I seriously doubt that modern militias require the firearms owned by members to be registered. Gun owners who would belong to militias likely would oppose gun registration the same as most other gun owners. 

The Second Amendment does not specify that all guns in a militia have to be registered. That would have been up to the individual colonial militia. Each militia would have had rules for its members and there may have been considerable differences between militias. One militia could have inspected the required arms of the members when they showed up for meetings or practice. Another militia might have had the right to inspect the firearms in the owners homes. The Second Amendment does not describe how to regulate your militia. 

Originally militias were composed of men however I can’t find any laws that prohibited white women from owning firearms.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Once again you do not have to be part of a militia to exercise your Second Amendment right to own firearms according to rulings by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Rules and regulations for militias in colonial times do not apply to gun registration today. I seriously doubt that modern militias require the firearms owned by members to be registered. Gun owners who would belong to militias likely would oppose gun registration the same as most other gun owners.
> 
> ...


Never said you have to be part of a militia

Only that the Second Amendment allows gun registration


----------



## Batcat (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Which goes to the fact that there are no ‘militias.’
> 
> ‘Militias’ exist solely as authorized by government – armed private citizens alone cannot declare themselves a ‘militia.’
> 
> ...


The Free State Of Florida‘s Governor Desantis may form his own militia.









						Desantis Plans to Revive Florida’s State Militia
					

Genuine change will likely come only through muddling through at the state and local level



					www.newswars.com
				




***snip***

_
Florida governor Ron DeSantis recently got the decentralist memo when he announced on December 2, 2021, a new funding proposal for Florida’s National Guard and a plan that would resurrect the Florida State Guard, a state defense force that was disbanded in 1947.


This state defense force is expected to assist the National Guard in hurricanes, natural disasters, and other emergencies taking place specifically in Florida. DeSantis stressed that the Florida State Guard would “not be encumbered by the federal government.” In effect, the Florida State Guard would only respond to the governor. Furthermore, it would not be deployed for federal missions and would not receive federal dollars.

In predictable fashion, DeSantis’s move elicited a banshee shriek from his political rivals and the corporate press, who are utterly convinced DeSantis is on his way to building a private army. Agricultural commissioner Nikki Fried described DeSantis’s state guard plan as a step toward creating a “paramilitary force.”

Sober minds will recognize that a Florida State Guard will not put the state on an accelerated course toward full-blown private defense. However, it is still a positive step toward devolving power away from the federal government and letting states assume defense functions the federal government has gradually abrogated over the years._

Plus we already have a number of militias in Florida.









						In Florida, armed militias are 'waiting for a cause'
					

TAMPA — They occupy a wildlife refuge headquarters in the Pacific Northwest. In the Southwest, armed vigilantes march in the name of border control.




					www.tampabay.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Only that the Second Amendment allows gun registration


Correct.

And regardless of how ineffective or unwarranted registration might be, registration in no manner violates or infringes upon the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> The Free State Of Florida‘s Governor Desantis may form his own militia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol

Obviously you don’t know that DeSantis is the government.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Never said you have to be part of a militia
> 
> Only that the Second Amendment allows gun registration


The Second Amemdment doesn’t say anything about gun registration.

The fact that some militias in colonial times may have required firearm registration is totally irrelevant today.

I love living in the Free State of Florida which says in the Florida State Constitution that gun registration is ILLEGAL. 



			Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> The Second Amemdment doesn’t say anything about gun registration.
> 
> The fact that some militias in colonial times may have required firearm registration is totally irrelevant today.



Doesnt have to
But registration is essential to having a well regulated militia

Suppose the Commies invade and local communities are forced to defend themselves ……they need to know who in their community is armed


----------



## Batcat (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Doesnt have to
> But registration is essential to having a well regulated militia
> 
> Suppose the Commies invade and local communities are forced to defend themselves ……they need to know who in their community is armed


Suppose the Commies invade. They could use the gun registration list to find out who has firearmS.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Suppose the Commies invade. They could use the gun registration list to find out who has firearmS.


lol

The_ Red Dawn_ fallacy.

And there are no ‘commies.’


----------



## Jarlaxle (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can your militia be in good working order if you don’t know who is in it and what type of weapon they will bring?


I agree.

Every able-bodied adult should receive an M16, M4, or M249 free of charge.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> and you still don't understand the phrase, "*Keep *and Bear Arms"


"Keep" as in hold...or "handle."


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Suppose the Commies invade. They could use the gun registration list to find out who has firearmS.



Or they could just seize NRA and Hunting Licenses


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your thread premise is a lie and most on the dishonest right are liars – particularly when it comes to the regulation of firearms.
> 
> Conservatives propagate all manner of lies and demagoguery – about guns being ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.


You keep avoiding this question 
What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Militia Group?
> 
> Don‘t you want to defend your country if we are invaded by Commies?
> 
> ...


Commies are here


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Fully automatic machine guns were readily available before regulation, and would still be readily available without regulation. Removing fully automatic machine guns from the street did make us safer.


Repeal the NFA


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

okfine said:


> It's a valid question when it comes to determining what ammo will be needed.


No it's not a valid question


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> "Keep" as in hold...or "handle."





MagicMike said:


> "Keep" as in hold...or "handle."


buy a dictionary
keep means neither


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> buy a dictionary
> keep means neither


You have a 1789 dictionary?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> You have a 1789 dictionary?





MagicMike said:


> You have a 1789 dictionary?



do you have one with the definition ""Keep" as in hold...or "handle.""


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> You have a 1789 dictionary?


Keep means to maintain possession


----------



## okfine (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it's not a valid question


Because you didn't think of it. That's all, fido.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

okfine said:


> Because you didn't think of it. That's all, fido.


Its not a valid question because you are to supply your own ammo


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?
> 
> Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Why do you hate America?



You are not a part of we.
We can handle our constitutional firearms just fine.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Keep means to maintain possession


Within the context of a WELL REGULATED militia ONLY.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 24, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> do you have one with the definition ""Keep" as in hold...or "handle.""


Why u trying to sound like a constitutional scholar?
Do you REALLY think James Madison INTENDED (because it's ALL about the intent) for guys like Salvador Ramos to be able to "keep" weapons?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Within the context of a WELL REGULATED militia ONLY.


nope

read the entire Amendment.

there's more after the word Militia


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Why u trying to sound like a constitutional scholar?
> Do you REALLY think James Madison INTENDED (because it's ALL about the intent) for guys like Salvador Ramos to be able to "keep" weapons?





MagicMike said:


> Why u trying to sound like a constitutional scholar?



why you trying to sound like a moron?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Within the context of a WELL REGULATED militia ONLY.


It means exactly that to possess 
Would it had been easier for the British to confiscate weapons if they were kept in a central place or harder to confiscate going house to house? Concord and Lexington.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Sep 24, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I don’t really care if it does or not. In my opinion the fewer guns in the hands of white folks the better.



Hahahahhaha what a fool.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Sep 24, 2022)

ClaireH said:


> Lol your obvious assumption that any thug walking around with unregistered or stolen guns, including guns with serial numbers erased to be used like a burner phone hard to trace, is ludicrous. Requiring honest folks to register their guns while the criminals at large couldn’t care less about legalities and the like isn’t even rational.



Leftism isn’t rational.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2022)

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> Hahahahhaha what a fool.


Yes he is


----------



## Batcat (Sep 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Or they could just seize NRA and Hunting Licenses


Not all that many shooters are NRA members believe it or not.  The NRA claims to have 5 million members. Many gun owner have no interest in hunting. There are around 38 million hunters. Gun owners are estimated to be around 81 million.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> lol
> 
> The_ Red Dawn_ fallacy.
> 
> And there are no ‘commies.’


The biggest fallacy about _Red Dawn_ is that the Russians could have invaded the United States and taken over. It lacked the means to deliver the necessary number of troops and supplies. 

If a nation ever does invade the United States they will face armed resistance from civilians assuming gran grabbers are unsuccessful. If the gun grabbers are successful the United States will no longer be a free nation and would not be worth defending. 






Yes, there are Communists today. 









						List Of Communist Countries Today
					

There are five Communist countries in the world today. Learn more about the spread of Communist and about the political history of each of these countries.




					www.worldatlas.com


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Privilege versus rights.
> What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


*Trying to register an illegal firearm doesn't magically make it legal possession no matter if you are previously a registered criminal or not. *​


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 24, 2022)

Delldude said:


> Don't tell anyone, but I went 56 in a 55 mph zone.
> I have a privilege to drive and a right to speed.


..... until your excessive speeding renders your license invalid.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You'll have to argue with state law over that. I thought you were in favor of states having authority.




When they don't violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you are correct....when the democrat party tried to use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting, they did it at the state level....that violated the Constitution so they had to stop.....

Same thing here....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2022)

Batcat said:


> The biggest fallacy about _Red Dawn_ is that the Russians could have invaded the United States and taken over. It lacked the means to deliver the necessary number of troops and supplies.
> 
> If a nation ever does invade the United States they will face armed resistance from civilians assuming gran grabbers are unsuccessful. If the gun grabbers are successful the United States will no longer be a free nation and would not be worth defending.
> 
> ...




As it turns out, they can't even handle Ukraine, let alone the U.S.....


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Or they could just seize NRA and Hunting Licenses



Only a minority of gun owners hunt, and there's no such thing as an "NRA license"...


----------



## ihealyou (Sep 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> too bad the second isn't about militias isn't it?


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 25, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> *Trying to register an illegal firearm doesn't magically make it legal possession no matter if you are previously a registered criminal or not. *​


You should stop drunk posting. If you were trying to make a point you did to irrelevance


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 25, 2022)

ihealyou said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

George Mason the father of the bill of rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 25, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> lol
> 
> The_ Red Dawn_ fallacy.
> 
> And there are no ‘commies.’


Shove your fallacy up your ass





rightwinger said:


> Or they could just seize NRA and Hunting Licenses


I don't have either.


----------



## ihealyou (Sep 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
> 
> George Mason the father of the bill of rights.


The Militia is every single US citizen, public official or not + the National Guard.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 25, 2022)

ihealyou said:


> The Militia is every single US citizen, public official or not + the National Guard.


You would be so very wrong 
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
*the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia*.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Dude!
> It is LITERALLY the FIRST four words of 2A!!!!


The second is about the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 25, 2022)

ihealyou said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE is the subject of the second amendment not the militia


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Where has any court decided that registration is unconstitutional?


Registration isn't unconstitutional, it's keeping a searchable gun registry by the government that is....and there is law covering it:

_“ “The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner. The exact wording of the provision is as follows:_

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.”


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.
> 
> It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.
> ...


 Sorry, Mikey, you missed the boat.



> _the right of the_ *people* _to keep and bear arms_





> *Keep*:
> to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own: If you like it, keep it.


SCOTUS didn't legislate from the bench in 2008, they only affirmed the constitutional right.

Regarding Roe...SCOTUS cannot create constitutional rights. A constitutional right would be added to the constitution via an amendment, for which there is a process, defined, in the COTUS.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> ..... until your excessive speeding renders your license invalid.


Officer, I was exercising my pursuit of happiness, while enjoying my liberty.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> Sorry, Mikey, you missed the boat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IF, as you say, the SCOTUS only "affirmed a constitutional right" in the 2008 Heller case then the same statement MUST apply to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

Either BOTH rulings simply affirmed a constitutional right or they were both cases of SCOTUS legislating from the bench.

And if the former is the case then the recent Dobbs v. Jackson ruling must be unconstitutional.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> IF, as you say, the SCOTUS only "affirmed a constitutional right" in the 2008 Heller case then the same statement MUST apply to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
> 
> Either BOTH rulings simply affirmed a constitutional right or they were both cases of SCOTUS legislating from the bench.
> 
> And if the former is the case then the recent Dobbs v. Jackson ruling must be unconstitutional.



Please point to the Amendment where abortion is mentioned.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 25, 2022)

ihealyou said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right* of the people *to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*"


When the second amendment is repealed then *denying you keeping and bearing arms* won't be called infringement. It *will be called* *honouring the Constitution and upholding the law. *


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 25, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Please point to the Amendment where abortion is mentioned.


The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a "right to privacy."
I don't think you want to go down that "show me where it specifically says" route when comparing Second Amendment rights with others.

After all "arms" according to 2A is very specifically limited.
It's like me asking you to show me where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own an AR-15....or a .44.....or a 12 gauge, or any other modern firearms.
All it says is "arms."


----------



## ihealyou (Sep 25, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> When the second amendment is repealed then *denying you keeping and bearing arms* won't be called infringement. It *will be called* *honouring the Constitution and upholding the law. *
> 
> View attachment 701363


I don't care. I don't have a gun and I don't intend buying one.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 25, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> ..... until your excessive speeding renders your license invalid.





Delldude said:


> Officer, I was exercising my pursuit of happiness, while enjoying my liberty.


*"Get out of the car, show me your hands, turn your back towards me and walk in my direction until I say, 'stop'." *


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 25, 2022)

ihealyou said:


> I don't care. I don't have a gun and I don't intend buying one.


So, you're not as dumb as I first suspected.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> IF, as you say, the SCOTUS only "affirmed a constitutional right" in the 2008 Heller case then the same statement MUST apply to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
> 
> Either BOTH rulings simply affirmed a constitutional right or they were both cases of SCOTUS legislating from the bench.
> 
> And if the former is the case then the recent Dobbs v. Jackson ruling must be unconstitutional.



You are correct, Heller did affirm the constitutional rights, in the second amendment. That is what SCOTUS does, interpret law, not create it.

SCOTUS, some 50 years ago 'created' an abortion law which was a violation of the constitution.  

There is no constitutional amendment nor any mention whatsoever in the COTUS of any abortion rights, there never was a law.

SCOTUS did what it is supposed to do, they interpreted the COTUS and under the 10th amendment, determined the federal gov't 'created' law which it had no business doing, under the COTUS.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> *"Get out of the car, show me your hands, turn your back towards me and walk in my direction until I say, 'stop'." *


Officer, I got bad gas.....


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a "right to privacy."
> I don't think you want to go down that "show me where it specifically says" route when comparing Second Amendment rights with others.
> 
> After all "arms" according to 2A is very specifically limited.
> ...





MagicMike said:


> After all "arms" according to 2A is very specifically limited.



how are they limited?



MagicMike said:


> it say you have a right to own an AR-15....or a .44.....or a 12 gauge, or any other modern firearms.



all of which are considered 'arms'


----------



## beautress (Sep 25, 2022)

ihealyou said:


> I don't care. I don't have a gun and I don't intend buying one.


I didn't either, ihealyou, until one of the dogs around here got bitten and died by its venom. Her replacement cost is $5,000. She was a Boston Terrier. There are no dogs quite like Boston Terriers. They are loyal and they love you completely. I hate guns too. But sometimes if you don't have one, snakes will get the idea there is nothing to fear by killing the dog you love with all your heart.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 25, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> how are they limited?
> 
> 
> 
> all of which are considered 'arms'


And an abortion is a private medical procedure that is covered by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> You are correct, Heller did affirm the constitutional rights, in the second amendment. That is what SCOTUS does, interpret law, not create it.
> 
> SCOTUS, some 50 years ago 'created' an abortion law which was a violation of the constitution.
> 
> ...


*No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You keep avoiding this question
> What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?


In every jurisdiction where there is registration, firearms have never been ‘confiscated.’

Your thread premise is a lie.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> And an abortion is a private medical procedure that is covered by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.



Hardly

you should change your avatar.

Here's a suggestion





or would this be more appropriate?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

ihealyou said:


> The Militia is every single US citizen, public official or not + the National Guard.


Wrong.

Militia exist only as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.

Private armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – to do so is illegal.

See _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886).


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, **without due process of law**; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.


Ahem....

Privileges and Immunities Clause​
_There has been some debate over the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause with several possible original meanings. A question arises as to whether the clause meant that all state laws should be applied equally to its citizens or that state laws should have certain substantive content. The substantive view can be further divided into two categories. One view is that these privileges and immunities include all of the rights in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Thus, this view sees the purpose of the Privileges and Immunities Clause as applying all of the rights in the Constitution to all of the states. Another view is that it only meant to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states._


> Amendment X​_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people._


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 25, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Militia exist only as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> ...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> See _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886).



when did the Second go into effect?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The second is about the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.


And its case law determines how the government regulates and limits that right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

ihealyou said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


And limits and regulations on the Second Amendment right consistent with its case law do not constitute ‘infringement.’


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> And an abortion is a private medical procedure that is covered by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.


If so, why have the democrats been so vehement in depriving living humans in the womb of _life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness_ with state sponsored abortion?
This goes directly against your 14th amendment.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In every jurisdiction where there is registration, firearms have never been ‘confiscated.’
> 
> Your thread premise is a lie.


Guess you forgot about 'Nawlin's during Hurricane Katrina.


----------



## beautress (Sep 25, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Militia exist only as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> ...


BLM certainly did, and Democrats defunded the police in areas of their elitism by way of the Democrat majority in the Capitol building.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> If so, why have the democrats been so vehement in depriving living humans in the womb of _life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness_ with state sponsored abortion?
> This goes directly against your 14th amendment.


So are you trying to say that these only partially formed organisms have rights that supercede the mother's?


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So I accept that as yes registration does lead to confiscation



I never wrote that.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  

Yes, I have one firearm in my house.

Yes, it is Registered.

Yes, I have a firearms licence.

Yes, I keep the firearm in a gun safe.

No it has not been confiscated.  IF you are felon, or on parole and you have a firearm, YES it can be confiscated as it is against for a person who is known felon and/or parole to have a firearm

Registration does NOT lead to confiscation.  Your deep seated paranoia is showing.


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 25, 2022)

beautress said:


> BLM certainly did, and Democrats defunded the police in areas of their elitism by way of the Democrat majority in the Capitol building.



The Reich Wing Bug-A-Boo.  When all else it has to be Black Lives Matter.  
It was Reich Wing Milita that attack the U.S. Capitol Building on 01-06-21.

It was Reich Wing Militia that beat U.S. Capitol Hill Police Officers with Metal Poles and used Bear Spray the same CHPO Officers.


----------



## beautress (Sep 25, 2022)

bravoactual said:


> The Reich Wing Bug-A-Boo.  When all else it has to be Black Lives Matter.
> It was Reich Wing Milita that attack the U.S. Capitol Building on 01-06-21.
> 
> It was Reich Wing Militia that beat U.S. Capitol Hill Police Officers with Metal Poles and used Bear Spray the same CHPO Officers.


That's because the leftist locksteppers push the envelope until all its adversaries vomit. Then it's happy. *barf* 

Fortunately for America, it knows that the Republicans will lovingly put back the pieces to the latest Democrat insanity and return the world to a place of peace and plenty, and sometimes that takes 8 years.


----------



## beautress (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> So are you trying to say that these only partially formed organisms have rights that supercede the mother's?


Real mothers do not delete their babies. Killer moms do that _ad nauseum._


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

beautress said:


> BLM certainly did, and Democrats defunded the police in areas of their elitism by way of the Democrat majority in the Capitol building.


This is a lie – as ignorant as it is wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

beautress said:


> That's because the leftist locksteppers push the envelope until all its adversaries vomit. Then it's happy. *barf*
> 
> Fortunately for America, it knows that the Republicans will lovingly put back the pieces to the latest Democrat insanity and return the world to a place of peace and plenty, and sometimes that takes 8 years.


The neo-fascist right is the sole threat to America and our democratic institutions.

The 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy was just the beginning of the illiberal, authoritarian right’s war on democracy.

And the neo-fascist right’s war on facts and the truth is likewise part of the conservative agenda to destroy our democratic institutions – with ridiculous, baseless lies about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> So are you trying to say that these only partially formed organisms have rights that supercede the mother's?


No, I said your 14th amendment assertion is full of holes.

Up against the wall and you change your narrative, 'eh?


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 25, 2022)

beautress said:


> Real mothers do not delete their babies. Killer moms do that _ad nauseum._



Real Moms do not raise their kids to MAGAMAGGOT idiots.


----------



## Ringo (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?
> 
> Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?


For well regulated militia you can register modern military gun.  Why register old SKS or Mauser K98, old Browning HP or Walther P38?


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?
> 
> Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Why do you hate America?


The well regulated militia's were for the security of a free state. They have morphed into the Nation Guard in each state, under command of the governor. Another 10th amendment 'quirk'.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

Ringo said:


> For well regulated militia you can register modern military gun.  Why register old SKS or Mauser K98, old Browning HP or Walther P38?


Nothing like wacking a tango with a classic firearm.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

bravoactual said:


> Real Moms do not raise their kids to MAGAMAGGOT idiots.


Maybe....but somewhere you seem to have gone of the rails a wee bit.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> The well regulated militia's were for the security of a free state. They have morphed into the Nation Guard in each state, under command of the governor. Another 10th amendment 'quirk'.


Have they they now?

Are you claiming we no longer need a second amendment?


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Have they they now?
> 
> Are you claiming we no longer need a second amendment?


LOL.....our well regulated militia is now NG. You saying we don't need our technologically modern well regulated militia?

Maybe we should make them the way they were in the 1800's. Even give out free muskets.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 25, 2022)

beautress said:


> That's because the leftist locksteppers push the envelope until all its adversaries vomit. Then it's happy. *barf*
> 
> Fortunately for America, it knows that the Republicans will lovingly put back the pieces to the latest Democrat insanity and return the world to a place of peace and plenty, and sometimes that takes 8 years.


Sure, it takes a while to return to the 50s where women, blacks, and all the other minorities knew their places, and everyone that counts was happy.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Sure, it takes a while to return to the 50s where women, blacks, and all the other minorities knew their places, and everyone that counts was happy.



We had affirmative action 'back in the day' and even racial hiring quotas......they worked quite well.
Now we have 'equity'......with unconstitutional results.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> We had affirmative action 'back in the day' and even racial hiring quotas......they worked quite well.
> Now we have 'equity'......with unconstitutional results.


Ozzie and Harriet were never an accurate depiction of America as a whole. We can never get back to that because it never existed.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Ozzie and Harriet were never an accurate depiction of America as a whole. We can never get back to that because it never existed.


Wasn't when they were 'in power'.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> No, I said your 14th amendment assertion is full of holes.
> 
> Up against the wall and you change your narrative, 'eh?


Not at all.
For 49 years Roe was the constitutional law of the land.
Roe was based upon the SCOTUS'
 interpretation of the 14th Amendment in 1973.

Likewise since 2008 (24 years)  the SCOTUS' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been the constitutional law of the land.

No difference.

Now if you want to try to argue that the two cases are different because one is more "constitutional" than the other then that is not sensible or logical because you would be saying that two conflicting things are both true at the same time.
Either you ACCEPT and respect the SCOTUS' ability to interpret the U.S. Constitution and make laws accordingly.....or you don't.
If your opinion is that the SCOTUS' opinions are only valid and constitutional whenever YOU agree with them well then.....

You can see the problem there.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

Biden: "What in God's name do you need an “assault weapon” for?” 

ASK THE FOUNDERS.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Not at all.
> For 49 years Roe was the constitutional law of the land.
> Roe was based upon the SCOTUS'
> interpretation of the 14th Amendment in 1973.
> ...


Ok, then show me where roe v wade is in the constitution.

And it has been proven to be an incorrect interpretation.


----------



## MagicMike (Sep 25, 2022)

beautress said:


> Real mothers do not delete their babies. Killer moms do that _ad nauseum._


They aren't even "babies" yet.
They aren't even breathing.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> LOL.....our well regulated militia is now NG. You saying we don't need our technologically modern well regulated militia?
> 
> Maybe we should make them the way they were in the 1800's. Even give out free muskets.



Are you claiming the second amendment is now obsolete?
Why don’t we just make gun rights at the state level…..like abortion?


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Are you claiming the second amendment is now obsolete?
> Why don’t we just make gun rights at the state level…..like abortion?


Gun rights are at the state level. Look into the gun registration issue. Each state has their own laws......it's an ongoing topic of debate with fed gun registration.


----------



## Couchpotato (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?
> 
> Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Why do you hate America?


Just have everyone own a gun.   Problem solved.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> Gun rights are at the state level. Look into the gun registration issue. Each state has their own laws......it's an ongoing topic of debate with fed gun registration.



Exactly
Why do we need federal gun rights when the states are capable of taking care of it


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 25, 2022)

I've had the firearm (Colt .45) I inherited from Dad (he was issued the weapon after being promoted on Okinawa).

He died in 1998.  As part of his will, I received it.  Also, as part of his will I have observed proper firearms training and storage.  The only way I could keep the .45 was if it was Registered and Licenced.

When I was a kid, that was the pistol I learned to shoot with.  By the time I was in the Army, I was very proficient with it.  I scord expert with a pistol in the Army and expert with the M-16.

I have a deep respect for firearms and believe they should be strictly controlled.  Every week, I go to a pistol range and run one box of shells through it.  I buy a new box of shell, go home and clean it and return it the gun safe.

I've never had to use to defend myself, but I know how to.

The Marin County Sheriff's Department issued the licence and I carry my registration with me.

No member of law enforcement has tried to take it away from me.  This crap about registration leads to confiscation is pure bullshit.  Paranoia strikes deep for Cons....

I believe strongly in very strict firearms contol.  Licencing and Registration should be required.  To receive such a licence and/or registration a person should be compelled to demonstrate profiency with their weapon of choice.  When NOT in use firearms should loc ked away safely.

I know Cons do not believe in that.  These idiots with their open carry bullshit are trying to prove something.  I do not need to prove a damn thing.  No one is coming for you firearms, I find the raving about it amusing.  Next up, black helicopters landing in the street...


----------



## Couchpotato (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Exactly
> Why do we need federal gun rights when the states are capable of taking care of it


Because it's in the Constitution?    And we NEED those rights enumerated precisely because of people like you.    Thanks for playing.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> Because it's in the Constitution?    And we NEED those rights enumerated precisely because of people like you.    Thanks for playing.



But we  no longer face the threat where we need militias
It is obsolete
Let states decide on their gun laws
Each state is different


----------



## Couchpotato (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> But we  no longer face the threat where we need militias
> It is obsolete
> Let states decide on their gun laws
> Each state is different











						How Difficult Is It to Amend the Constitution?
					

Find out about the processes used to amend the Constitution and see how many times the Constitution has been amended.




					www.thoughtco.com
				




Have at it.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> How Difficult Is It to Amend the Constitution?
> 
> 
> Find out about the processes used to amend the Constitution and see how many times the Constitution has been amended.
> ...


We cannot even agree to pass a budget
No way can we agree on amending the Constitution. It hasn’t been done in 40 years


----------



## Couchpotato (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> We cannot even agree to pass a budget
> No way can we agree on amending the Constitution. It hasn’t been done in 40 years


Then my previous post stands.


----------



## ClaireH (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> They aren't even "babies" yet.
> They aren't even breathing.


Your point about breathing has been knocked out of the park. Unless you’re under the delusion that babies who aren’t breathing on their own when they are delivered are not really babies. Think on that a little bit Magic Mike. Ask your mom, if she’s still living and not estranged, if your own lungs needed human intervention so you could breath on your own. Valid info.

Darn it! I went down a path that wasn’t even on topic OK sorry about that so on topic- yes I can see where registering guns would not mean a reduction in any thug activity going on in any state. Crimes of opportunity will continue as is because violent offenders and repeat felons don’t do laws.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Sep 25, 2022)

bravoactual said:


> I've had the firearm (Colt .45) I inherited from Dad (he was issued the weapon after being promoted on Okinawa).
> 
> He died in 1998.  As part of his will, I received it.  Also, as part of his will I have observed proper firearms training and storage.  The only way I could keep the .45 was if it was Registered and Licenced.
> 
> ...



Look, we all get it: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, the police, and criminals.


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 25, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Look, we all get it: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, the police, and criminals.



First off, I am NOT rich.  Far from it.  I want strict Firearms Control.  "*This is rifle, this is my gun, one is for shooting and one is for fun.*"

Nor can you site where I wrote that.  You do not need lie to make your point, which is what you just did.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> Because it's in the Constitution?    And we NEED those rights enumerated precisely because of people like you.    Thanks for playing.


Such is the right’s hypocrisy, so much for conservatives being ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights.”


----------



## Stann (Sep 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


If they're not registered you are breaking the law. And you just announced it to the world.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 25, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Such is the right’s hypocrisy, so much for conservatives being ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights.”


you're comparing


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> The well regulated militia's were for the security of a free state. They have morphed into the Nation Guard in each state, under command of the governor. Another 10th amendment 'quirk'.


Where private armed citizens cannot constitute a ‘militia.’

Indeed, ‘well-regulated militia’ is an anachronism – the Second Amendment right is an individual – not collective – right unconnected with militia service.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 25, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> Not at all.
> For 49 years Roe was the constitutional law of the land.
> Roe was based upon the SCOTUS'
> interpretation of the 14th Amendment in 1973.
> ...


Correct. 

The problem – again – is rightwing hypocrisy, where conservatives’ perception of the Constitution is based on rightwing political dogma, not the Constitution and the consistent application of its case law.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 25, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where private armed citizens cannot constitute a ‘militia.’
> 
> Indeed, ‘well-regulated militia’ is an anachronism – the Second Amendment right is an individual – not collective – right unconnected with militia service.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where private armed citizens cannot constitute a ‘militia.’



Were the Minute Men a militia?


Did they answer to the 'state'?


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 25, 2022)

Delldude said:


> Officer, I got bad gas.....


Ah, that explains your erratic acceleration. Try using super premium octane next time.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Exactly
> Why do we need federal gun rights when the states are capable of taking care of it


Ask your progressive liberals.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> *Ozzie and Harriet were never an accurate depiction of America as a whole*. We can never get back to that because it never existed.


Yes they were....that was when the dem's were doing their best to trample on civil rights of minorities.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where private armed citizens cannot constitute a ‘militia.’
> 
> Indeed, ‘well-regulated militia’ is an anachronism – the Second Amendment right is an individual – not collective – right unconnected with militia service.



They did in the 1800's.....and still do.


----------



## bravoactual (Sep 25, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Such is the right’s hypocrisy, so much for conservatives being ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights.”



Cons believe in States Rights, when they want the State's to those rights.  Otherwise, sorry.


----------



## Delldude (Sep 25, 2022)

bravoactual said:


> Cons believe in States Rights, when they want the State's to those rights.  Otherwise, sorry.


Enumerated within the COTUS. 
The way it is supposed to be.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Sep 26, 2022)

bravoactual said:


> First off, I am NOT rich.  Far from it.  I want strict Firearms Control.  "*This is rifle, this is my gun, one is for shooting and one is for fun.*"
> 
> Nor can you site where I wrote that.  You do not need lie to make your point, which is what you just did.



Come on, you can admit it...at least to yourself. You want guns limited to the "right" people...the rich, the well-connected, police, criminals.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Not much of a well regulated militia…
> 
> Suppose my town is concerned about a Commie invasion that we have to repel.
> We need to form a well regulated militia to fend off the Commie Horde
> ...


Really dude really??? ROTFLMBO... Keep squealing boy,  but know that no one is listening with any seriousness to your made up bull crap.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And its case law determines how the government regulates and limits that right.


Tell that to the State of NY who just had their laws on guns deemed unconstitutional


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Tell that to the State of NY who just had their laws on guns deemed unconstitutional


As long as the gun Insanity continues to get worse the laws will get be less lenient about their use.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> As long as the gun Insanity continues to get worse the laws will get be less lenient about their use.


More laws has never been the answer.

What we need to do is actually enforce the gun laws we have on the books.  State governments AND the federal government have completely ignored their duties to enforce gun laws.

Every single instance of any prohibited persons possessing a firearm is a federal crime yet these crimes are never prosecuted in federal courts.
Some states drop over 70% of all gun charges in plea deals.

What happens when gun laws are actually enforced you ask?

We have data that proves when gun laws are enforced that all crime is reduced.





__





						Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia
					





					ojjdp.ojp.gov
				












						Program Profile: Project Exile
					

A crime reduction strategy in Richmond, Virginia implemented to deter former and would-be offenders from carrying and using firearms, with an overall goal of reducing firearm-related homicides. The project is rated Promising. Firearm-related homicides decreased significantly in the target area...




					crimesolutions.ojp.gov
				




*Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.*


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> More laws has never been the answer.
> 
> What we need to do is actually enforce the gun laws we have on the books.  State governments AND the federal government have completely ignored their duties to enforce gun laws.
> 
> ...


That may be true, but stricter gun laws seem to make people feel safer. And over time they should help the situation.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> As long as the gun Insanity continues to get worse the laws will get be less



LIke during prohibition?

Drunk Driving dropped by 50%,

(couldn't buy a drink legally anywhere in the country, and drunk driving only decreased by 50%?)

Make all the laws you want. Criminals don't care.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> That may be true, but stricter gun laws seem to make people feel safer. And over time they should help the situation.


No they don't

Reduced crime rates make people feel safer.  And tell me what new gun law in the past couple decades had actually reduced the crime rate?  Answer: Not a single one because they are not enforced.


----------



## Bobob (Sep 26, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> If you KNEW that a government effort to confiscate firearms would lead to tens of thousands of deaths in that process, would you still think it was the correct move?


Registration and confiscation are not the same.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 26, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Registration and confiscation are not the same.


The argument is that one leads to the other not that they are the same


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> LIke during prohibition?
> 
> Drunk Driving dropped by 50%,
> 
> ...


Criminals will always be criminals as long as they have access to guns. Eliminate the guns eliminate the problem.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Criminals will always be criminals as long as they have access to guns. Eliminate the guns eliminate the problem.


Why should law abiding people have their rights taken away?

Maybe we should punish you for the crimes other people commit,


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Criminals will always be criminals as long as they have access to guns. Eliminate the guns eliminate the problem.





Stann said:


> Criminals will always be criminals as long as they have access to guns



Criminals will always have access to guns, even if banned.

Just like they had access to booze during Prohibition, and drugs even after the war on them started.



Stann said:


> Eliminate the guns eliminate the problem.


Planning a house to house search?


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> LIke during prohibition?
> Drunk Driving dropped by 50%,
> (couldn't buy a drink legally anywhere in the country, and drunk driving only decreased by 50%?)
> 
> *Make all the laws you want. Criminals don't care.*


.... and/or ....... 


Stann said:


> Criminals will always be criminals as long as they have access to guns. *Eliminate the guns eliminate the problem*.


The two schools of thought together seem like a dilemma - but is it?

*FIRST *of all, if "criminals *don't care about laws" *what's the solution?
1). Don't bother making laws because criminals don't respect them?
2). Don't enforce the laws that criminals don't resect?
3). Enforce the fucking laws and deal with criminals.

*SECOND*, if criminals will always be criminals as long as they have access to guns ...... what would be wrong with *eliminating the guns*?

1). Would it be a difficult task? Yes. That's why professionals (the police) are hired for the job.
2). Would it be worth it? Yes. Of course it would.


----------



## iceberg (Sep 26, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Your childish MAGA mind is made up, and facts would just confuse you. I would tell you to quit whining, but we both know you aren't capable of that.


Show is an example and stop your own whining.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> .... and/or .......
> 
> The two schools of thought together seem like a dilemma - but is it?
> 
> ...



You think even the National Guard would try a house to house search on the south side of Chicago, or the thousands of other areas inhabited by criminals?

a war on Drugs didn't make drugs disappear, just made them more expensive.

Do you have a Harry Potter Magic wand?

You'll need one

Here's a hint.

It ain't rednecks and NRA members you need to worry about, it's gangbangers and drug dealers that will continue killing.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Criminals will always have access to guns, even if banned.
> 
> Just like they had access to booze during Prohibition, and drugs even after the war on them started.


If you haven't got even the slightest understanding of the difference between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun then I honestly cannot think why you imagine that you have anything to contribute to this thread.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> You think even the National Guard would try a house to house search on the south side of Chicago, or the thousands of other areas inhabited by criminals?
> 
> a war on Drugs didn't make drugs disappear, just made them more expensive.
> 
> ...


See post #366.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> If you haven't got even the slightest understanding of the difference between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun then I honestly cannot think why you imagine that you have anything to contribute to this thread.



Thank you for proving  you're  moron.

any machinist can make a firearm.


most of the illegal booze came in over one border or another.

Jack Kennedy made a fortune in bringing in booze under the radar.

Our border is porous.

we can't stop drugs, we can' t stop illegal aliens...


WHAT MAKES YOU THINK WE CAN STOP FIREARMS/


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> See post #366.



I saw it.

proof you're a moron


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 26, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> If you haven't got even the slightest understanding of the difference between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun then I honestly cannot think why you imagine that you have anything to contribute to this thread.


*>>>>>>>>>>*


Hugo Furst said:


> Thank you for proving  you're  moron.
> 
> any machinist can make a firearm.


Thank you for proving that you haven't got the slightest understanding of the difference between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun.


Hugo Furst said:


> WHAT MAKES YOU THINK WE CAN STOP FIREARMS/


WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE SUCH ABSURD CONCLUSIONS? You don't actually read the replies in this thread, do you. You're running on pure fantasy.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> *>>>>>>>>>>*
> 
> Thank you for proving that you haven't got the slightest understanding of the difference between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun.
> 
> WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE SUCH ABSURD CONCLUSIONS? You don't actually read the replies in this thread, do you. You're runing on pure fantasy.





GLASNOST said:


> Thank you for proving that you haven't got the slightest understanding of the difference between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun.



You apparently don't either.

as stated, any machinist can make a firearm.

Biden has 'banned' them, calling them 'ghost guns'.


GLASNOST said:


> You don't actually read the replies in this thread, do you.



everyone of them

How else would I know you're a moron?



GLASNOST said:


> You're runing on pure fantasy.



If you think you can get rid of millions of firearms, you're the one running on fantasy.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> as stated, any machinist can make a firearm.


Your own words. Anyone - literally anyone - can brew alcohol in their kitchen, in their garage or in the forest. It is your conviction that everyone is a machinist and has access to a lathe. 


Hugo Furst said:


> Biden has 'banned' them, calling them 'ghost guns'.


Your own words. If you actually read the replies in this thread (you so obviously haven't read anything that disagrees with you) then you'd know that "enforcement" of the law is the key. You know ....... "enforcement"? It's been introduced in this dialogue so you should not have missed it if you were actually reading.  Post #363, for example. 


Hugo Furst said:


> If you think you can get rid of millions of firearms you're the one running on fantasy.



Your own words, the very same *"absurd words"* I was talking about. But let us refresh your memory with some more of your own wods >>>>> 


Hugo Furst said:


> couldn't buy a drink legally anywhere in the county and drunk driving only decreased by 50%r


.... and carrying on with more of your own words >>>>> 


Hugo Furst said:


> Just like they had access to booze during Prohibition


Your own words, apparently _"your best shot"_ too. So, what you are saying is that by following your "best shot" example the government cannot expect more than a 50% reduction in shooting homicides by eliminating guns. Ho-ho! You poor sod. Those of you reading this who think 50% fewer shooting homicides is a good thing .... raise your hand. Here's my vote:


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Your own words. Anyone - literally anyone - can brew alcohol in their kitchen, in their garage or in the forest. It is your conviction that everyone is a machinist and has access to a lathe.
> 
> Your own words. If you actually read the replies in this thread (you so obviously haven't read anything that disagrees with you) then you'd know that "enforcement" of the law is the key. You know ....... "enforcement"? It's been introduced in this dialogue so you should not have missed it if you were actually reading.  Post #363, for example.
> 
> ...





GLASNOST said:


> It is your conviction that everyone is a machinist and has access to a lathe.



WTF did I say that?



GLASNOST said:


> Your own words. If you actually read the replies in this thread (you so obviously haven't read anything that disagrees with you) then you'd know that "enforcement" of the law is the key. You know ....... "enforcement"? It's been introduced in this dialogue so you should not have missed it if you were actually reading



I've read them.

and it's obvious you cherry pick what you want to respond to.

less than 2% of the firearms in this country are used to commit crimes and less than 2% of those are used to commit murder. 


3/5s of firearm deaths are suicides, so they dont' count.

You keep proving you live in a fantasy world, and are willing to spin facts.

you make NO attempt to explain how you are going to prevent firearms entering thru porous borders.

You're a waste of time.



y


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> WTF did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


50% less crime was your own figure. If it's inaccurate it's your own fault. 


Hugo Furst said:


> you make NO attempt to explain how you are going to prevent firearms entering thru porous borders.


I honestly don't think you know what the term "absurd" means. You must be having a dialogue with your imagination because you haven't really made any respons to anything I've said yet.


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Why should law abiding people have their rights taken away?
> 
> Maybe we should punish you for the crimes other people commit,


Well lawmakers seem to think that abortion is barbaric and they took away women's right to have them so I think guns are barbaric and they should go by the wayside if humanity is ever going to advance itself forget the law abiding stuff it's not worth it anymore. They technology it's not the same as it was in the old days it's so advanced it's become horrifically dangerous. They shouldn't even be allowed to make these kind of guns anymore except for the police they're the only ones and unmilitary they're the only answers have these horrible weapons. But then again war should be outlawed already, humans are just too stupid for their own good. Time to let the computers rule over us.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 26, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No dumb ass. Guns are not allowed in special sensative areas. The NYPD telling them the guns have to be kept somewhere else, and giving them the option of storing them for the business owners. The business owners are free to store them any other place that is legal. They just can't keep them in those sensitive areas.
> From your link
> *The letter reads:* “_If this applies to your place of business, please bring your applicable firearm(s) to your local precinct in order for it to be safeguarded for you. Alternatively, you may bring your firearm(s) to another location where you are lawfully allowed to possess and store it. Lastly, you may contract with a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL) to store the firearm(s) for you – they may, however, charge for this service.”_




The law will be stricken by the courts. Many people live in these areas and they have a constitutional right to have firearms in their homes. The law will not pass a strict scrutiny test.

.


----------



## basquebromance (Sep 26, 2022)




----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> The law will be stricken by the courts. Many people live in these areas and they have a constitutional right to have firearms in their homes. The law will not pass a strict scrutiny test.
> 
> .


America's changing for the better, everyone's rights are being protected from horrific abuse.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why do you hate the Second Amendment?
> 
> Don’t you think well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Do you hate Freedom?




Why do you hate the Constitution? The people's right to keep and bear arms in not contingent on militia service. Or the permission from some commie politician.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 26, 2022)

basquebromance said:


>











						Texas officials accuse Harris County of slashing constables’ budgets — but they’re actually going up
					

Comptroller Glenn Hegar said the state could block the approval of Harris County’s budget because it’s not allowing constables to roll $3 million in unspent funds into next year’s budget — even though the constables’ total funding will go up next year.




					www.texastribune.org


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> America's changing for the better, everyone's rights are being protected from horrific abuse.




If that were true business owners would not be prevented form protecting themselves regardless of where the business is located. The commies in NY are trying to be cute and circumvent the supreme court ruling and the courts will bitch slap the hell out of them for their effort.

.


----------



## themirrorthief (Sep 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The registration of firearms is encouraged by the Second Amendment
> 
> How else can we have well regulated militias?


why dont we make an example and take away governments guns first


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why do you hate the Second Amendment?
> 
> Don’t you think well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?
> 
> Do you hate Freedom?


At the time of the drafting of the second amendment there was no federal military there were only state militias what we now call national guards. That's what this isn't furniture it's not about an individual person's right to bear arms. Did you know that during the American revolution up to 30% of the American public or tories,. People who supported Britain. Anyone  defined as such had their weapons confiscated.. The government seized their weapons. All of this is just common sense in her in a historical perspective. In today's modern world we face a lot different challenges including rebels living among us. The dangers of modern weaponry are ever increasing and will have to be dealt with.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 26, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> The law will be stricken by the courts. Many people live in these areas and they have a constitutional right to have firearms in their homes. The law will not pass a strict scrutiny test.
> 
> .


Perhaps that's why the letter was sent to business owners instead of home owners.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 26, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> Why do you hate the Constitution? The people's right to keep and bear arms in not contingent on militia service. Or the permission from some commie politician.
> 
> .


Didnt say it was

Did say the Second Amendment supports the registration of firearms


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 26, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> State law is not law of the land nor does it supercede the US Cinstitution


See how they try to piggy back off of other issue's trying to make an unsupported unrelated point... They think that they are so smart when they do this, but it's seen right through when they try it.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 26, 2022)

themirrorthief said:


> why dont we make an example and take away governments guns first


Biden says you can't do that.... I mean hey do you think you can fight f-15s, tank's etc ? Com'on mannnnnnn... lol 

The fuhrer Biden has spoken.  

When will the nightmare of this presidency end ? Hopefully in November where he will be made a lame duck along with his merry band of acting Robin Hood's...


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 26, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> Biden says you can't do that.... I mean hey do you think you can fight f-15s, tank's etc ? Com'on mannnnnnn... lol
> 
> The fuhrer Biden has spoken.
> 
> When will the nightmare of this presidency end ? Hopefully in November where he will be made a lame duck along with his merry band of acting Robin Hood's...


Biden understands how dangerous RW Terrorists can be


----------



## Leo123 (Sep 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Biden understands how dangerous RW Terrorists can be


Biden doesn't understand even where he is.  He's like a puppet, kept in a box and dragged out to parrot talking points then put back again.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 26, 2022)

themirrorthief said:


> why dont we make an example and take away governments guns first


Take away the government's guns? Who do you think would be in charge of such an endevor.  We can note that your logic and reasoning abilities don't seem to have changed much.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 26, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Biden doesn't understand even where he is.



Of course he does…..in the White House


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Of course he does…..in the White House


trump is the one who doesn't understand where he's at he thinks he belongs in the White House. He never did.


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> If that were true business owners would not be prevented form protecting themselves regardless of where the business is located. The commies in NY are trying to be cute and circumvent the supreme court ruling and the courts will bitch slap the hell out of them for their effort.
> 
> .


I guess you don't believe in facts or statistics either. Store owners who have guns are 17 times more likely to be shot. The money isn't worth it. Hand it over to the crooks, notify the police and contact your insurance company. That's a best policy to live with.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> I guess you don't believe in facts or statistics either. Store owners who have guns are 17 times more likely to be shot. The money isn't worth it. Hand it over to the crooks, notify the police and contact your insurance company. That's a best policy to live with.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Were the Minute Men a militia?
> 
> 
> Did they answer to the 'state'?


Either conservatives support “states’ rights” or they don’t.

If the states have the right to force women to give birth against their will, then states likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Either conservatives support “states’ rights” or they don’t.
> 
> If the states have the right to force women to give birth against their will, then states likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit.
> 
> Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


is that supposed to answer my question?

IN the old west, when a sheriff called for a posse, was that a use of militia?


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> View attachment 702030


Thanks for the joke, but the yellow stripe should be on trump's back, he's the biggest car there ever was.


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> is that supposed to answer my question?
> 
> IN the old west, when a sheriff called for a posse, was that a use of militia?


Today we have paid law enforcement people that look like they're going to war they're so heavily armed. No posse's necessary or wanted. That idiot coward child in Wisconsin proved that without a doubt.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Tell that to the State of NY who just had their laws on guns deemed unconstitutional


An ignorant and ridiculous response.

Second Amendment case law determines how the government regulates and limits that right, such as requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm – _Bruen_ doesn’t change that fact and is now part of that Second Amendment jurisprudence instructing governments how to regulate and limit the Second Amendment right.

Second Amendment case law is in its infancy and still evolving – it will take years – perhaps decades – before we have a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment right.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Thanks for the joke, but the yellow stripe should be on trump's back, he's the biggest car there ever was.



The 'joke' is your post.

you want store owners to roll over and play dead.

That's not why they opened a business,


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An ignorant and ridiculous response.
> 
> Second Amendment case law determines how the government regulates and limits that right, such as requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm – _Bruen_ doesn’t change that fact and is now part of that Second Amendment jurisprudence instructing governments how to regulate and limit the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Second Amendment case law is in its infancy and still evolving – it will take years – perhaps decades – before we have a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment right.


It was quite easy to comprehend for the founding fathers. And it doesn't say what you think it says. Very few people know the real intent of the law.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Today we have paid law enforcement people that look like they're going to war they're so heavily armed. No posse's necessary or wanted. That idiot coward child in Wisconsin proved that without a doubt.



did you fucking miss "*IN the old west,*"?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Well lawmakers seem to think that abortion is barbaric and they took away women's right to have them so I think guns are barbaric and they should go by the wayside if humanity is ever going to advance itself forget the law abiding stuff it's not worth it anymore. They technology it's not the same as it was in the old days it's so advanced it's become horrifically dangerous. They shouldn't even be allowed to make these kind of guns anymore except for the police they're the only ones and unmilitary they're the only answers have these horrible weapons. But then again war should be outlawed already, humans are just too stupid for their own good. Time to let the computers rule over us.


Whether it’s abortion or guns – ‘bans’ don’t work; whether it’s ‘banning’ abortion or guns, both are examples of increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

‘Banning’ certain types of firearms or placing more restrictions on firearms is ineffective and pointless.

Solutions need to be explored that address the problem of gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> did you fucking miss "*IN the old west,*"?


That's why I said today did you miss that.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> That's why I said today did you miss that.



thanks for yet another deflection.

come back when you can stay on topic


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> thanks for yet another deflection.
> 
> come back when you can stay on topic


What kind of idiot are you ?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> What kind of idiot are you ?


one that stays on topic

you should try it..


you'll look less of an idiot


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> It was quite easy to comprehend for the founding fathers. And it doesn't say what you think it says. Very few people know the real intent of the law.


It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the Constitution through cases brought before the courts, and to establish the case law placing limits on how government regulates or restricts citizens’ rights – including the Second Amendment.

And current Second Amendment case law holds that the Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense unconnected with militia service.

It’s only been 12 years since the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions – prior to that it applied solely to the Federal government.

Consequently, the courts have only started to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment, its scope and limitations, as well as limitations as to how state and local governments may regulate and restrict that right.


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> one that stays on topic
> 
> you should try it..
> 
> ...


Listen you idiot
 You pointed out about the policies in the old west. I pointed out that in today's world posse's are outdated and not practical I even gave an example. The police are better change and more heavily armed than at any time in history, that's their job.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Perhaps that's why the letter was sent to business owners instead of home owners.


Business owners at liberty to possess firearms, to relocate their firearms to other venues, firearms that have in no manner been ‘confiscated.’

And laws that prohibit firearms in certain locations are perfectly Constitutional – neither infringing upon nor violating the Second Amendment.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Listen you idiot
> You pointed out about the policies in the old west. I pointed out that in today's world posse's are outdated and not practical I even gave an example. The police are better change and more heavily armed than at any time in history, that's their job.





Stann said:


> You pointed out about the policies in the old west.



Because the discussion was about civilian militias

You took off for left field.



Stann said:


> I pointed out that in today's world posse's are outdated and not practical I even gave an example.


which has nothing to do with the topic.

I tire of your deflections.



see ya next week


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2022)

themirrorthief said:


> why dont we make an example and take away governments guns first


That would be an example of ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Because the discussion was about civilian militias
> 
> You took off for left field.
> 
> ...


Like I said civilian malicious have no place in today's world. Join the national guard that's what they were talking about.


----------



## Stann (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Like I said civilian malicious have no place in today's world. Join the national guard that's what they were talking about.


If you think a group like the good old boys or whatever they're called, the oath keepers, etc. Are well-regimented militias you are out of your f****** mind.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 26, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Perhaps that's why the letter was sent to business owners instead of home owners.




What makes you think the next round won't be to people with premises permits living in the red zones?

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 26, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Didnt say it was
> 
> Did say the Second Amendment supports the registration of firearms




Feel free to point to that verbiage.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> I guess you don't believe in facts or statistics either. Store owners who have guns are 17 times more likely to be shot. The money isn't worth it. Hand it over to the crooks, notify the police and contact your insurance company. That's a best policy to live with.






.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Biden understands how dangerous RW Terrorists can be




Yeah, so dangerous it takes 30 FBI swat members to arrest a pro-life pastor with his wife and 7 kids in the home. What was his crime, simply pushing a man back that was in his 12 yo sons face cursing him. The asshole tried to sue the pastor and the case was thrown out of court, but now the regime DOJ is pursuing criminal charges, even when there was no physical harm done. So fuck you and your commie propaganda.

.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> ... war should be outlawed already, humans are just too stupid for their own good.


Yes.


Stann said:


> Time to let the computers rule over us.


It is the Military-Industrial Complex that rules over us now.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Either conservatives support “states’ rights” or they don’t.
> 
> If the states have the right to force women to give birth against their will, then states likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit.
> 
> Conservatives can’t have it both ways.




There is no constitutional right to kill your child, so it was left to the States. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms so that isn't. If you weren't so illiterate you'd know that.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> is that supposed to answer my question?
> 
> IN the old west, when a sheriff called for a posse, was that a use of militia?




Nope, it was a use of State police powers.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Whether it’s abortion or guns – ‘bans’ don’t work; whether it’s ‘banning’ abortion or guns, both are examples of increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.
> 
> ‘Banning’ certain types of firearms or placing more restrictions on firearms is ineffective and pointless.
> 
> Solutions need to be explored that address the problem of gun crime and violence that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.




Yeah, strict regulation of criminals, something you commies don't seem to want to do.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> What kind of idiot are you ?




A little lower grade than your weapons grade idiocy.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts determine what the Constitution means, to interpret the Constitution through cases brought before the courts, and to establish the case law placing limits on how government regulates or restricts citizens’ rights – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> And current Second Amendment case law holds that the Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense unconnected with militia service.
> 
> ...




Wow, more commie lies, the 2nd was incorporated the same time the 1st was, with the ratification of the 14th. You might want to read up on the incorporation doctrine.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Business owners at liberty to possess firearms, to relocate their firearms to other venues, firearms that have in no manner been ‘confiscated.’
> 
> And laws that prohibit firearms in certain locations are perfectly Constitutional – neither infringing upon nor violating the Second Amendment.




Not when the law is written so broadly that it virtually eliminates constitutional rights in whole city of 8 million people.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> Like I said civilian malicious have no place in today's world. Join the national guard that's what they were talking about.




If you're going to be that ignorant, you should learn how to spell what you're talking about.

.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 27, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> What makes you think the next round won't be to people with premises permits living in the red zones?
> 
> .


What makes you think it will? The voices in youre head?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 27, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> Not when the law is written so broadly that it virtually eliminates constitutional rights in whole city of 8 million people.
> 
> .


Perhaps you should write your own law and UPS it to them.  I'm sure they would appreciate your help and pass it right away.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 27, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> Yeah, so dangerous it takes 30 FBI swat members to arrest a pro-life pastor with his wife and 7 kids in the home. What was his crime, simply pushing a man back that was in his 12 yo sons face cursing him. The asshole tried to sue the pastor and the case was thrown out of court, but now the regime DOJ is pursuing criminal charges, even when there was no physical harm done. So fuck you and your commie propaganda.
> 
> .


Really? That sounds horrible. Don't worry though, cause I'm sending my thoughts and prayers, and we all know that is all that's needed to solve a problem.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> What makes you think it will? The voices in youre head?




Nope, past performance is the best predictor of future performance. That unelected bitch that has assumed the governorship thinks she can dictate anything. You can bet your ass the courts will give her an attitude adjustment.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Perhaps you should write your own law and UPS it to them.  I'm sure they would appreciate your help and pass it right away.




I'll let the courts shove the commies law up their ass.

.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 27, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> Nope, past performance is the best predictor of future performance. That unelected bitch that has assumed the governorship thinks she can dictate anything. You can bet your ass the courts will give her an attitude adjustment.
> 
> .


You're funny in a creepy sort of way.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Really? That sounds horrible. Don't worry though, cause I'm sending my thoughts and prayers, and we all know that is all that's needed to solve a problem.




And a republican congress to impeach Garland and Wray.

.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 27, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> And a republican congress to impeach Garland and Wray.
> 
> .


Of course. Revenge is the only plank you MAGAs have in your platform.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Of course. Revenge is the only plank you MAGAs have in your platform.




Yeah, that's why you commies will be sucking hind tit come Jan. LMAO

.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 27, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> Yeah, that's why you commies will be sucking hind tit come Jan. LMAO
> 
> .


Revenge will stir up your existing MAGA crazies, but it won't convince anybody else to join your cult.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> I guess you don't believe in facts or statistics either. Store owners who have guns are 17 times more likely to be shot. The money isn't worth it. Hand it over to the crooks, notify the police and contact your insurance company. That's a best policy to live with.


Armed robbery is rarely successful anymore
Each robbery is recorded and the suspect is usually identified within a few days


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Stann said:


> Well lawmakers seem to think that abortion is barbaric and they took away women's right to have them so I think guns are barbaric and they should go by the wayside if humanity is ever going to advance itself forget the law abiding stuff it's not worth it anymore. They technology it's not the same as it was in the old days it's so advanced it's become horrifically dangerous. They shouldn't even be allowed to make these kind of guns anymore except for the police they're the only ones and unmilitary they're the only answers have these horrible weapons. But then again war should be outlawed already, humans are just too stupid for their own good. Time to let the computers rule over us.


Not really because a woman can simply travel to a state where abortion is legal.

Roe was always a kind of iffy thing anyway.

And tell me if a woman does break the law in a state that bans abortion are YOU punished for it in any way?

The vast majority of rapists are men.  I think rape is reprehensible.   Should we treat all men as if they are guilty of rape.

Maybe you want to volunteer to be the one who is punished for the crimes of others.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An ignorant and ridiculous response.
> 
> Second Amendment case law determines how the government regulates and limits that right, such as requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm – _Bruen_ doesn’t change that fact and is now part of that Second Amendment jurisprudence instructing governments how to regulate and limit the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Second Amendment case law is in its infancy and still evolving – it will take years – perhaps decades – before we have a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment right.


Those of us with any common sense know how the second is supposed to work.

Tell me what if we wanted to regulate and limit voting rights like requiring classes testing and permitting, you'd be all for that right?

How about 1st, 4th or 5th amendment rights?  If you don't take a class, pass a rest and pay a fee then you don't get those rights either.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Armed robbery is rarely successful anymore
> Each robbery is recorded and the suspect is usually identified within a few days











						Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. go unsolved
					

In 2015, 47% of the violent crimes and 35% of the property crimes tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics were reported to police.




					www.pewresearch.org


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. go unsolved
> 
> 
> In 2015, 47% of the violent crimes and 35% of the property crimes tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics were reported to police.
> ...



Your link does not provide data on armed robbery of a business


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Your link does not provide data on armed robbery of a business


cherry picking at its finest


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> cherry picking at its finest


Not really
Your link does not debunk what I posted


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Whether it’s abortion or guns – ‘bans’ don’t work; whether it’s ‘banning’ abortion or guns, both are examples of increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.


When your car gets stolen or your home is broken into .... you know what I'm going to tell you, right? Making it illegal (and depriving criminals of their livelihood) is an example of the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Revenge will stir up your existing MAGA crazies, but it won't convince anybody else to join your cult.




As usual, you commies are thinking smoke and mirrors can fool the public again, you're wrong.









						Nearly 8 In 10 Americans Believe U.S. Has A Two-Tiered Justice System: Survey | The Daily Wire
					






					www.dailywire.com
				




What you propagandist call revenge, the rest of the country will call justice.

.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 27, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> As usual, you commies are thinking smoke and mirrors can fool the public again, you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the 2 tiered justice system existed long before Biden was president.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 27, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> ..... your existing *MAGA crazies* .....


-------------- 


OKTexas said:


> As usual, *you commies* ..... .


This is why the US will never amount to anything. Two opposing idiots arguing over nothing but absurd conclusions. Typical American buffoonery dupped into *extremist* nonsense.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 27, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> the 2 tiered justice system existed long before Biden was president.




Yep, but the xiden regime has amplified it, it's long past time to hold people accountable. Trump hired Wray to clean up the FBI, not fuck it up more. And Garland has made everything worse and the American people see it.

.


----------



## Stann (Sep 27, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> .


Office of Justice Programs | Office of Justice Programs>abstracts>effects of offender weapon use and victim self-defense in robbery.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 27, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> When the second amendment is repealed then *denying you keeping and bearing arms* won't be called infringement. It *will be called* *honouring the Constitution and upholding the law. *
> 
> View attachment 701363


I like what the Free State Of Florida Statutes and Constitution has to say about gun registration. 



			Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine
		


_
790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
(b) The Legislature intends through the provisions of this section to:
1. Protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. Protect the privacy rights of law-abiding firearm owners.
(2) PROHIBITIONS.—No state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of such state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, shall knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms._


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 27, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> When the second amendment is repealed then *denying you keeping and bearing arms* won't be called infringement. It *will be called* *honouring the Constitution and upholding the law. *





Batcat said:


> I like what the Free State Of Florida Statutes and Constitution has to say about gun registration.
> 
> 
> 
> Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine


I am trying to see what it has to do with my post or at least the purpose of yours.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> Office of Justice Programs | Office of Justice Programs>abstracts>effects of offender weapon use and victim self-defense in robbery.




Guess what hero, you link doesn't back up your claim of:


Stann said:


> Store owners who have guns are 17 times more likely to be shot.


From your link:
Abstract
Results revealed that self-protection of any kind apparently reduces the probability of the robbery being completed.* Armed resistance* is more effective than unarmed resistance; resistance with a gun, although relatively rare, *is the most effective victim response of all.*





						VICTIM RESISTANCE AND OFFENDER WEAPON EFFECTS IN ROBBERY | Office of Justice Programs
					






					www.ojp.gov
				




.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 28, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> I am trying to see what it has to do with my post or at least the purpose of yours.


Registration makes confiscation easier. If you ever manage to do away with the Second Amendment your next goal will be in ban and confiscate civialian owned firearms. 

It might be wisest to wait until the old timers die off before you push your plans. The younger generations look a lot more gullible.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 28, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Registration makes confiscation easier. If you ever manage to do away with the Second Amendment your next goal will be in ban and confiscate civialian owned firearms.


I'm sure you are right but that isn't the point  ..... my point.


Batcat said:


> It might be wisest to wait until the old timers die off before you push *your plans*. The younger generations look a lot more gullible.


I do side with the idea of eliminating guns but *it isn't my plan*. No personal offence to you but I don't give a shit if Americans kill each other off to the point of extinction. Keep your guns for all I care. My point is exactly as I stated it. Here it is again:




GLASNOST said:


> When the second amendment is repealed then denying you keeping and bearing arms *won't be called infringement*. It will be called *honouring the Constitution *and upholding the law.


*So, am I right or am I right? Is what I wrote correct or is it not correct?* And if I'm right then your reply with _"Statutes and Constitution ..... about gun registration"_ is totally irrelevant. Your link is intersting and important to know but it is irrelvant to my statment.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 28, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> I'm sure you are right but that isn't the point  ..... my point.
> 
> I do side with the idea of eliminating guns but *it isn't my plan*. No personal offence to you but I don't give a shit if Americans kill each other off to the point of extinction. Keep your guns for all I care. My point is exactly as I stated it. Here it is again:
> 
> ...


You could do away with the Second Amendment and people could still own guns. You would then have to pass laws saying civilian gun ownership was illegal. Such laws would not be ruled unconstitutional as there no longer would be a Second Amendment.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Not really
> Your link does not debunk what I posted


I don't know any crime stats that specifically categorize armed robberies of businesses

Do you?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I don't know any crime stats that specifically categorize armed robberies of businesses
> 
> Do you?



Generic “robbery” does not cut it 

Overall, cameras in businesses and in surrounding areas have significantly increased the apprehension of armed robbers

Why would you deny that?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Generic “robbery” does not cut it
> 
> Overall, cameras in businesses and in surrounding areas have significantly increased the apprehension of armed robbers
> 
> Why would you deny that?


Armed robbery is armed robbery why don't you produce some stats on " Armed Business robbery" to prove your point?


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 28, 2022)

Batcat said:


> You could do away with the Second Amendment and people could still own guns. You would then have to pass laws saying civilian gun ownership was illegal. Such laws would not be ruled unconstitutional as there no longer would be a Second Amendment.


Yes, it must be something like that. But that's the problem - most Americans think that the phrase "*shall not be infringed" *is written in blood and stone and is above (more or less) the Constitution itself as though anything in the Consitution can be repealed or amended but because of that phrase it can NEVER be changed. Why they do not understand is a mystery. The second amendment is *ITSELF* an "amendment" so of course it can be amended or repealed!


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 28, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Yes, it must be something like that. But that's the problem - most Americans think that the phrase "*shall not be infringed" *is written in blood and stone and is above (more or less) the Constitution itself as though anything in the Consitution can be repealed or amended but because of that phrase it can NEVER be changed. Why they do not understand is a mystery. The second amendment is *ITSELF* an "amendment" so of course it can be amended or repealed!





GLASNOST said:


> Yes, it must be something like that. But that's the problem - most Americans think that the phrase "*shall not be infringed" *is written in blood and stone and is above (more or less) the Constitution itself as though anything in the Consitution can be repealed or amended



and there is a process for that,






						Constitutional Amendment Process
					

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for...




					www.archives.gov


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Yes, it must be something like that. But that's the problem - most Americans think that the phrase "*shall not be infringed" *is written in blood and stone and is above (more or less) the Constitution itself as though anything in the Consitution can be repealed or amended but because of that phrase it can NEVER be changed. Why they do not understand is a mystery. The second amendment is *ITSELF* an "amendment" so of course it can be amended or repealed!


There is no way any repeal of the Second will make it through the necessary steps at least not in the next 50 years


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> and there is a process for that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And there's no way the repeal will pass the required steps


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 28, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> ........ The second amendment is *ITSELF* an "amendment" so of course it can be amended or repealed!





Hugo Furst said:


> and there is a process for that,


Of course, there is. I've been talking about it for years but  Americans don't believe me.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 28, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Of course, there is. I've been talking about it for years but  Americans don't believe me.


they believe you.

they just know it ain't going to happen.

2/3s of states?
2/3s of Congress?

it's a pipe dream


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 28, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> they believe you.
> 
> they just know it ain't going to happen.
> 
> ...


Your previous comment looked as though you might be finally willing to be sensible but no .... you're back in the dregs in a flash.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 28, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Your previous comment looked as though you might be finally willing to be sensible but no .... you're back in the dregs in a flash.



I am sensible

I know my country.

you seem to be laboring under delusions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2022)

bravoactual said:


> It's called State's Rights.  Individual States have the right to regulate firearms.


So long as those regulations do not violate the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2022)

v _Bruen_:
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.  The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

It is impossible to soundly argue the registration of firearms, as a requirement by the state for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Thus:  Unconstitutional


----------



## Batcat (Sep 28, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Yes, it must be something like that. But that's the problem - most Americans think that the phrase "*shall not be infringed" *is written in blood and stone and is above (more or less) the Constitution itself as though anything in the Consitution can be repealed or amended but because of that phrase it can NEVER be changed. Why they do not understand is a mystery. The second amendment is *ITSELF* an "amendment" so of course it can be amended or repealed!


Amending or repealing the Second Amendment has been a 
pipe dream for liberals for decades.

Yes, of course it can be done. The problem is doing it.

Recently supposedly intellectual and well educated democrats decided defunding the police and letting violent felons loose without requiring bail were great ideas. Crime has skyrocketed and cops have decided to leave the force. Consequently when you dial 911 it may take a long time for the cops to arrive. People realize they are now responsible for their own protection. Gun sales are up once again and more people are legally carrying firearms in public.

What may really hurt your cause in the end is women who used to support draconian gun control now are buying and even carrying guns for self protection.

To get rid of the Second Amendment most people should agree that crime is low and police arrive fast when called. Most should agree that they have no reason to waste money on a gun to protect myself and my family.

It looks like the liberals who thought they had the solution to crime managed to shoot your Do Away With The Second Amendment movement in the foot.

Ohttps://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/









						Concealed Carry Skyrockets Among Philadelphia Women
					

Concealed carry is skyrocketing among Philadelphia women as the city's crime wave continues to surge.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## flan327 (Sep 28, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


Run on sentence 

You enjoy having your ARSE kissed?


----------



## flan327 (Sep 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> v _Bruen_:
> When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.  The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
> 
> It is impossible to soundly argue the registration of firearms, as a requirement by the state for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
> Thus:  Unconstitutional


Wrong again 

Do you know when the Constitution was ratified?


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 28, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Amending or repealing the Second Amendment has been a
> pipe dream for liberals for decades.
> 
> Yes, of course it can be done. The problem is doing it.
> ...


Your first response to my statement was irrelevant so you decided to repeat it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Amending or repealing the Second Amendment has been a
> pipe dream for liberals for decades.
> Yes, of course it can be done. The problem is doing it.


No kidding.   
It takes just 13 states to stop it, and the 13 states most likely to do so contain about 7% of the US population.
Thus, it will never happen.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> No kidding.
> It takes just 13 states to stop it, and the 13 states most likely to do so contain about 7% of the US population.
> Thus, it will never happen.


When you consider the number of firearms and people who own firearms in our nation, it is amazing we don’t have far more problems than we do. Most honest and sane people handle firearms responsibly. 

A lot of the violent gun crime is perpetuated by drug cartels which cross our open Mexican border almost at will. As time passes they may take over our nation like they have in Mexico. 

The right to own firearms will most likely be more important in the future than it is today.









						Mexican Drug Cartels Really Run Mexico
					

Narcotraffickers really run Mexcio




					theuglyminute.com


----------



## evenflow1969 (Sep 28, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
> Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
> So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms


Lol, so when is some one going to knock on my door? Had weapons for over 50 years now. Still no knock at my door.  Lol, more horse shut from the party of fear and hate. Sit and tremble retard.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Lol, so when is some one going to knock on my door? Had weapons for over 50 years now. Still no knock at my door.  Lol, more horse shut from the party of fear and hate. Sit and tremble retard.


Only because Democrats know if they start banning and confiscating guns, they'll lose control of the federal governm,ent for decades.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 28, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> Yeah, so dangerous it takes 30 FBI swat members to arrest a pro-life pastor with his wife and 7 kids in the home. What was his crime, simply pushing a man back that was in his 12 yo sons face cursing him. The asshole tried to sue the pastor and the case was thrown out of court, but now the regime DOJ is pursuing criminal charges, even when there was no physical harm done. So fuck you and your commie propaganda.
> 
> .


Unbelievable... Everything is super politicized now, and Biden and his gang are attempting to hang on to what they possibly acquired in an unethical manor. So they're weaponizing everything they  possibly can. The sad thing is that they actually had reached a point in America that is finally spelling "pay day" for year's of leftist work that brought about the mindsets of people who are brainwashed beyond understanding these days.  I don't think that they represent the majority, but they don't have to when they have major platforms and corporations going along with their bull crap because of intimidation and promises, even worse covering for them at every turn in as a collective.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 28, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> There is no constitutional right to kill your child, so it was left to the States. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms so that isn't. If you weren't so illiterate you'd know that.
> 
> .


He's trying to couple the two in hopes to push abortion in with the second as a strategy to keep abortion as the same right as the second gives to gun owner's.

These people are so obvious that it's pathetic really.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Sep 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Only because Democrats know if they start banning and confiscating guns, they'll lose control of the federal governm,ent for decades.


Lol, so you admit another fake fear offered by the party of hate and fear. Hilarious 😂


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 28, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Lol, so you admit another fake fear offered by the party of hate and fear. Hilarious 😂


Fake fears eh ? So when you were buying gas, and it tripled from when Trump was president, uhhh that was fake fears eh ? So when Biden (just to spite Trump), destroyed the security on the border, that was just fake fears also eh ? So when Biden caused inflation to jump to heights this nation hadn't seen since the Carter error, that was just fake fear's too eh ? When Biden told Ukraine to fire that prosecutor that was investigating corruption or they wouldn't get the money, otherwise that ended up being a quid pro quo, so that was just fake fear's also eh ?

Could go on forever it seems, but you get the point I guess.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 29, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> Unbelievable... Everything is super politicized now, and Biden and his gang are attempting to hang on to what they possibly acquired in an unethical manor. So they're weaponizing everything they  possibly can. The sad thing is that they actually had reached a point in America that is finally spelling "pay day" for year's of leftist work that brought about the mindsets of people who are brainwashed beyond understanding these days.  I don't think that they represent the majority, but they don't have to when they have major platforms and corporations going along with their bull crap because of intimidation and promises, even worse covering for them at every turn in as a collective.




I found out another little factoid on that case today, the "incident" occurred a year ago and the local PD said there was insufficient to file charges. So now the feds are trying to put him in jail for 10-12 years for impeding access to a baby murder factory.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 29, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> He's trying to couple the two in hopes to push abortion in with the second as a strategy to keep abortion as the same right as the second gives to gun owner's.
> 
> These people are so obvious that it's pathetic really.




Nope, they're just too fucking stupid to breathe.

.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 29, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Your first response to my statement was irrelevant so you decided to repeat it.


What EXACTLY is irrelevant with my first statement and the follow up statement?

Your odds of successfully amending or repealing the Second Amendment are similar to the chances that a featherweight Golden Gloves amateur boxer could have beat Muhammad Ali in a 15 round boxing match when Ali was the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion.

It simply is not going to happen especially since crime in this nation is skyrocketing and the police response time is getting longer and longer. People realize they have to take responsibility for protecting themselves and their families and a firearm will work better than throwing a can of beans at someone who has invaded your home.

Face reality. You need to convince people that a 911 call will get such a quick response that they never have to worry before you can have a snowballs chance in hell of amending or repealing the Second Amendment. Police departments can’t even recruit new people to become cops as being a cop is a downright shitty job today.  









						Crisis: Cities Can’t Keep or Recruit Police Officers
					

The movement to defund the police is succeeding in ways that its advocates could not have envisioned initially. Defunding has always really been about abolition, despite the unpopularity of that concept. And while defunding has not always resulted in laying off or firing police officers, the...




					www.texaspolicy.com


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 29, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Your first response to my statement was irrelevant so you decided to repeat it.





Batcat said:


> What EXACTLY is irrelevant with my first statement and the follow up statement?


If you don't understand then I'm afraid you may have lost your mind somewhere between your first reply and this one.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 29, 2022)

Batcat said:


> What EXACTLY is irrelevant with my first statement and the follow up statement?
> 
> Your odds of successfully amending or repealing the Second Amendment are similar to the chances that a featherweight Golden Gloves amateur boxer could have beat Muhammad Ali in a 15 round boxing match when Ali was the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion.
> 
> ...


Being a cop today in the political climate that's been created, uhhhhh is akin to being set up by some evil always thinking criminal minded people for whom the government is eviliy fooled by, and worse the government has their back instead of the cop's back in this newly hostile environment that's been created.. Way to much politics in everything, where as the government is now using it in a super wrongful way. Abuse of office and power is out of control.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 29, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> Being a cop today in the political climate that's been created, uhhhhh is akin to being set up by some evil always thinking criminal minded people for whom the government is eviliy fooled by, and worse the government has their back instead of the cop's back in this newly hostile environment that's been created.. Way to much politics in everything, where as the government is now using it in a super wrongful way. Abuse of office and power is out of control.


I agree. One of my grandsons was considering becoming a cop and I discouraged him. He decided to join the Navy instead.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 29, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> If you don't understand then I'm afraid you may have lost your mind somewhere between your first reply and this one.


You can’t explain your accusation so you just throw out some words to make yourself look smarter than you are.

The Second Amendment can be repealed or amended but the chances of that happening in the next decade or two is slim to none. 

Until it is amended or repealed the words “shall not be infringed” will still be in effect. 

Of course you might be able to stack the Supreme Court and pass draconian gun legislation which the stacked court will approve. Then you will find the union will break apart either peacefully or violently. That will weaken the United States significantly so the Chinese will eventually take over the entire world. 

You will not like living under the thumb of a Chinese Communist dictator. The blacks will be really upset as the Chinese will have no pity for the fact their ancestors were once slaves.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 29, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Lol, so you admit another fake fear offered by the party of hate and fear. Hilarious 😂


You obviously chose to misunderstand my post.   No surprise.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 29, 2022)

Batcat said:


> You can’t explain your accusation .....


I not only can explain but *I have already *at least twice. I don't know what your problem is but it must be a complicated one.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 29, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> I not only can explain but *I have already *at least twice. I don't know what your problem is but it must be a complicated one.


Buy a copy






Have someone read it to you


----------



## Batcat (Sep 29, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> I not only can explain but *I have already *at least twice. I don't know what your problem is but it must be a complicated one.


You just babble away saying you have explained your position while you haven’t. 

Yes, the 2nd Amendment can be modified or repealed. Doing so at this time is a liberal pope dream. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 

Unless you manage to stack the Supreme Court the words, “shall not be infringed” will apply and your dreams of banning and confiscating civilian owned firearms are Dead in the water. 

If you do stack the Supreme Court, the Union will break apart. Hopefully the split will be peaceful but it WILL happen. A stacked Supreme Court may be another liberal dream but it would wipe its ass with the Constitution.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 29, 2022)

Batcat said:


> You just babble away ...


Suit yourself.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You hate the second amendment
> You hate America
> You're a fascist pig.


 The understatement of the century,the entire board pretty much knows this.this is a paid shill for Langley so no surprise.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 29, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> No, he's just a troll. He knows there's no valid argument in favor of gun registration, so he just belches up his verbal diarrhea so he can feel like he's got something of interest to say...


A paid troll fir langley Canon Shooter


----------



## Batcat (Sep 29, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Suit yourself.


If you ever were able to repeal the 2nd Amendment and tried to confiscate firearms you might face a daunting task. 

Some of the nicest people in the world are Canadians. Even Canadians are refusing to turn in their guns. Americans are definitely not the nicest people in the world. What do you think would happen here? 









						Canadians Aren’t Turning in Their Guns
					

Few gun owners are turning in weapons recently been made illegal by the Canadian government.




					thereload.com
				




_Few gun owners are turning in weapons recently been made illegal by the Canadian government.

That’s according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). They said Canadians had only turned in 160 of the recently-outlawed firearms for destruction since the announcement of the ban.

“The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) can confirm that, as of December 9, 2021, 18 firearms (formerly classified as restricted) affected by the May 1, 2020 Order in Council (OIC) have been deactivated,” Sgt. Caroline Duval, an RCMP spokesperson, told iPolitics on Friday. “In addition, there have been 142 OIC-affected firearms recorded as surrendered to a public agency for destruction since May 1, 2020.”

The announcement comes as the April 2022 deadline for the “assault weapon” confiscation order rapidly approaches. The Canadian government’s plan to collect the affected weapons has been rife with problems since it was announced. Consulting fees and enforcement planning have resulted in a bloated budget before even a single weapon has been “bought back,” and a concrete plan for the buyback program is yet to be finalized. It now appears affected gun owners are hesitant to give up their guns.

The difficulties experienced by the Canadian effort and a similar gun confiscation effort in New Zealand may impact the debate over implementing a similar policy in the United States. While gun-control advocates have shunned confiscation policies in the past, some Democrats have warmed to the idea of taking AR-15s and similar guns in recent years. Congressman Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) wrote an op-ed in favor of confiscation in 2018. Vice President Kamala Harris said she supports a mandatory buyback scheme similar to Canada’s policy during a 2020 presidential primary forum hosted by gun-control group March For Our Lives. Beto O’Rourke garnered much attention when he declared, “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47” during the same campaign. He has stuck with the policy since entering the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race despite the idea polling poorly._


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 30, 2022)

Batcat said:


> If you ever were able to repeal the 2nd Amendment and tried to confiscate firearms you might face a daunting task.


And you'll kill a lot of people.
Enough so that you'll be forced to give up your efforts.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 30, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And you'll kill a lot of people.
> Enough so that you'll be forced to give up your efforts.


WTH are you talking about ? Are you directing your post to the right poster ?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 30, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> WTH are you talking about ? Are you directing your post to the right poster ?


I was adding to what you said.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 30, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> I was adding to what you said.


Uhhhh I'm still confused... ROTFLMBO


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 30, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And you'll kill a lot of people.
> Enough so that you'll be forced to give up your efforts.


A stitch *in time* saves nine. Just think of all the lives you'd save by prevention: 

kindergartens
primary schools
junior high schools
 high schools 
colleges
universities
convenience store stick-em-ups
post offices
churches
road rages
drive-bys
shopping malls .....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 30, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> A stitch *in time* saves nine. Just think of all the lives you'd save by prevention:
> 
> kindergartens
> primary schools
> ...




The way to secure those buildings is simple.......get rid of gun free zones.   Mass public shooters choose gun free zones over 90% of the time.....the rest are going to places they have an attachment to like a job or where their girlfriend or ex-wife works.........

If the democrats would stop attacking the police, and stop releasing repeat gun offenders, 95% of our gun crime problem...in the very cities the democrats have complete control over.......would go down.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 30, 2022)

What part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." do you not understand?

what part of it takes 2/3s of currently 50 states, and 2/3s of each House of Congress to amend the constitution?

is English your third, or fourth, language?

Is there an adult in the area that can explain it to you?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 30, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> A stitch *in time* saves nine. Just think of all the lives you'd save by prevention:
> 
> kindergartens
> primary schools
> ...


Our murder rate is about the same as it was 50 years ago so it isn't guns that cause murders or crime.  It's PEOPLE


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 30, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The way to secure those buildings is simple.......get rid of gun free zones.   Mass public shooters choose gun free zones over 90% of the time.....the rest are going to places they have an attachment to like a job or where their girlfriend or ex-wife works.........
> 
> If the democrats would stop attacking the police, and stop releasing repeat gun offenders, 95% of our gun crime problem...in the very cities the democrats have complete control over.......would go down.


In the case of schools all you'd have to do is lock the fucking doors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> IF, as you say, the SCOTUS only "affirmed a constitutional right" in the 2008 Heller case then the same statement MUST apply to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
> 
> Either BOTH rulings simply affirmed a constitutional right or they were both cases of SCOTUS legislating from the bench.
> 
> And if the former is the case then the recent Dobbs v. Jackson ruling must be unconstitutional.


The right to keep and bear arms was affirmed constitutional.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> *Trying to register an illegal firearm doesn't magically make it legal possession no matter if you are previously a registered criminal or not.*​


All guns are legal regradless what some rabid leftist thug law maker might say 
The NFA is unconsitutional


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 30, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> A stitch *in time* saves nine. Just think of all the lives you'd save by prevention:
> 
> kindergartens
> primary schools
> ...


Just think of all the live's you'd save by being proactive against criminal's again ? Oh that's right, that's not the politically correct thing to do anymore, so it's suffer the good citizen's until they capitulate to the government on their Rights.

The Democrat modo has been to suffer everyone in hope's to embarrass the few because they know that everyone's suffering is because of them, but guess what ? The criminal's don't give a dam how much anyone suffers because of their criminal activity, and they see it more like not only are they suffering their victim's, but they are also suffering everyone else that they hate in the process. Great job you idiot Democrat's.

Democrat's are complete failure's... Period.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> A stitch *in time* saves nine. Just think of all the lives you'd save by prevention:
> 
> kindergartens
> primary schools
> ...


Once you get rid of criminals disarm any US based military and law enforcement removed all democrat elite armed security we'll talk.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 30, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> In the case of schools all you'd have to do is lock the fucking doors.


Not only that, but place metal detectors, and backpack checking policies at the choke points when entering the campuses. How damned hard can this bull crap be ? Simple truth is that we have a society that no longer gives a dam about the kid's. Welcome to the leftist Demoncrat Utopia. 

On vacation we went to a large venue with the grands, and guess what ? We had to pass through metal detectors and back pack screeners at the venue. If they can do it, then the schools can do it also.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 30, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> All guns are legal .....


I hope you realize how ridiculous that statement is.


bigrebnc1775 said:


> .... regradless what some rabid leftist thug law maker might say


So, actually, you don't care about the well-being of the American population as long as it is governed by "the right".


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 30, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> Just think of all the live's you'd save by being proactive against criminal's again ?


Well, yes that is (or ought to be) the goal but there is an imbalance between crime-stopping and wealthy business making. 


beagle9 said:


> Oh that's right, that's not the politically correct thing to do anymore, so it's suffer the good citizen's until they capitulate to the government on their Rights.


Red herring nonsense. Instead, *"Just think of all the lives you'd save by being proactive against criminals ...". *


beagle9 said:


> The Democrat modo has been to suffer everyone in hope's to embarrass the few because they know that everyone's suffering is because of them, but guess what ? The criminal's don't give a dam how much anyone suffers because of their criminal activity, and they see it more like not only are they suffering their victim's, but they are also suffering everyone else that they hate in the process. Great job you idiot Democrat's.
> 
> Democrat's are complete failure's... Period.


This is political bull shit and plays into the hands of the dumbed down "two party" crapolia ie. a diversion. Instead, *"Just think of all the lives you'd save by being proactive against criminals ..."* and  to get at the root of why so many turn to crime in the first place.


----------



## GLASNOST (Sep 30, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Once you get rid of criminals disarm any US based military and law enforcement removed all democrat elite armed security we'll talk.


You are lost in your own "escape route".  If you remove the gun "in time"  you'll have saved the lives of all of those people I referred to in my earlier post. Yes, even if removing the gun ends up killing the owner because of his resistance to giving it up voluntarily. That's *one life taken ..... untold numbers of lives saved. *

The subject of _"killing a lot of people"_ in the process of removing guns isn't mine. I am merely responding to it by logic. But then it wasn't you who introduced the notion of _"killing a lot of people" _either. Maybe he's the one who should be defending himself, not you.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 1, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> If you haven't got even the slightest understanding of the difference between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun then I honestly cannot think why you imagine that you have anything to contribute to this thread.


Guns can be made from stuff in the plumbing section at Lowe's.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 1, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Guns can be made from stuff in the plumbing section at Lowe's.


You haven't got even the slightest understanding of the difficulty between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 1, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> You haven't got even the slightest understanding of the difficulty between brewing alcohol and fabricating a gun.



Yes, I do. Making a gun is MUCH easier.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> You are lost in your own "escape route".  If you remove the gun "in time"  you'll have saved the lives of all of those people I referred to in my earlier post. Yes, even if removing the gun ends up killing the owner because of his resistance to giving it up voluntarily. That's *one life taken ..... untold numbers of lives saved. *
> 
> The subject of _"killing a lot of people"_ in the process of removing guns isn't mine. I am merely responding to it by logic. But then it wasn't you who introduced the notion of _"killing a lot of people" _either. Maybe he's the one who should be defending himself, not you.


You have no logic if you believe gun control works


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You have no logic if you believe gun control works


I guess we should remove all of the "stop" and "speed limit" signs and quit prosecuting people for theft and homicide. It's illogical to believe those laws work.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> I guess we should remove all of the "stop" and "speed limit" signs and quit prosecuting people for theft and homicide. It's illogical to believe those laws work.


Rights versus privilege try again


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rights versus privilege try again


Criminals versus laws your turn.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2022)

MagicMike said:


> And if the former is the case then the recent Dobbs v. Jackson ruling must be unconstitutional.


^^^
A big steaming pile of non sequitur.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Criminals versus laws your turn.


Rights Trump's it all


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 1, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> I hope you realize how ridiculous that statement is.
> 
> So, actually, you don't care about the well-being of the American population as long as it is governed by "the right".


Fuck your well being


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 2, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> So, actually, you don't care about the well-being of the American population as long as it is governed by "the right".





bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fuck your well being


It's not _my_ well-being - it's yours - and it is high time that you admit to yourself that you are a Fascist sympathiser. You'd have loved Adolf Hiter and Benito Mussolini.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Oct 2, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> It's not _my_ well-being - it's yours - and it is high time that you admit to yourself that you are a Fascist sympathiser. You'd have loved Adolf Hiter and Benito Mussolini.





GLASNOST said:


> You'd have loved Adolf Hiter and Benito Mussolini.



not nearly as much as you would have...

After all, the three of you share the same views on gun ownership


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> It's not _my_ well-being - it's yours - and it is high time that you admit to yourself that you are a Fascist sympathiser. You'd have loved Adolf Hiter and Benito Mussolini.


F U C K your well being get in reality and buy a gun to defend yourself.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 2, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> not nearly as much as you would have...
> 
> After all, the three of you share the same views on gun ownership


Pretty much on target.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> F U C K your well being get in reality and buy a gun to defend yourself.


Why would I need to defend myself? The only would-be threat anywhere in the vicinity of my LZ is you, and a paper clip is all I need to neutralize you.


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 2, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> You are lost in your own "escape route".  If you remove the gun "in time"  you'll have saved the lives of all of those people I referred to in my earlier post. Yes, even if removing the gun ends up killing the owner because of his resistance to giving it up voluntarily. That's *one life taken ..... untold numbers of lives saved. *
> 
> The subject of _"killing a lot of people"_ in the process of removing guns isn't mine. I am merely responding to it by logic. But then it wasn't you who introduced the notion of _"killing a lot of people" _either. Maybe he's the one who should be defending himself, not you.


Think about where Putin might be if the citizen's in Russia were armed to the teeth. He might be in his own gulag by now........ Do you think that he'd be easily manipulating that citizenry to not stand up to him and his war mongering if they were armed like American's are, and do you think that he would be successful at locking all those anti-war protestor's up so easily ? This is why part of America's check's and balances included a well armed regulated militia in the constitution, and it also said that the citizen's right to bear arms was not to be infringed upon. End of story.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 3, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> Think about where Putin might be if the citizen's in Russia were *armed to the teeth*.


OK, I’m thinking ….. 


beagle9 said:


> He might be in *his own gulag* by now........


Why is that?


beagle9 said:


> Do you think that he'd be easily manipulating that citizenry to not stand up to him and his *war mongering* if they were armed like American's are ...


Oh, my goodness! That’s a bad analogy and you’ve just shot yourself in the foot and disproved your own logic. *“War mongering”*, you say? Now, what country can you think of that is the worst *“war-mongerer”* as we speak? ……..... Time is up, the answer is the USA. B-b-b-b-b-but Americans are *“armed to the teeth”* so how is it that the president isn’t *“in his own gulag by now”*? There is something extremely wrong with your logic. Don’t you agree? 


beagle9 said:


> This is why part of America's check's and balances included a well armed regulated militia in the constitution ...


This makes no sense at all. 


beagle9 said:


> ... it also said that the citizen's *right to bear arms* was *not to be infringed upon*.


So, you believe that if the Constitution (or that particular clause) were to be amended that you would still have a *“citizen's right to bear arms”* and that it would be *“uninfringe upon”*? Excuse me for laughing but that kind of belief is awfully childish. Do you not know what an *“amendment”* is? What about *"repeal”*, do you know what that means?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Why would I need to defend myself? The only would-be threat anywhere in the vicinity of my LZ is you, and a paper clip is all I need to neutralize you.


Good luck nutbag.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Good luck nutbag.


You don't know as much as you think you do. I guess you've never heard of *"experience"*.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> You don't know as much as you think you do. I guess you've never heard of *"experience"*.


Sure it's called law enforcement and military experience.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sure it's called law enforcement and military experience.


I've got the military experience and you've got a hankering to disobey the law so you're screwed either way. It's criminals like you who ought to be denied access to guns in the first place and it is you OF COURSE who is screaming to keep your pop gun. It's as typcial as anyone can expect.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Oct 3, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> OK, I’m thinking …..
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> ...





GLASNOST said:


> What about *"repeal”*, do you know what that means?


Yes,

it means 2/3s of each house of Congress, (66 members the Senate, 290 members of the House) and 2/3s of the states, (38). have agreed to make a change to a current amendment.


Not going to happen
do you understand how hard that would be?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Yes,
> 
> it means 2/3s of each house of Congress, (66 members the Senate, 290 members of the House) and 2/3s of the states, (35). have agreed to make a change to a current amendment.


3/4 of the states.  38.
The 13 states most likely to vote against a repeal of the 2nd hold about 7% of the US population.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 3, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> 3/4 of the states.  38.
> The 13 states most likely to vote against a repeal of the 2nd hold about 7% of the US population.


Did you say what you think you said?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Did you say what you think you said?


What part did you choose to not understand?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Oct 3, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> What part did you choose to not understand?



the more he responds, the more I'm convinced he's a troll.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 3, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> What part did you choose to not understand?


I have misunderstood *NOTHING*, neither intentionally nor unintentionally. I am asking if what you wrote is what you really wanted to say. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know how you found something confrontational in my question.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> the more he responds, the more I'm convinced he's a troll.


It -is- painfully obvious.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> I've got the military experience and you've got a hankering to disobey the law so you're screwed either way. It's criminals like you who ought to be denied access to guns in the first place and it is you OF COURSE who is screaming to keep your pop gun. It's as typcial as anyone can expect.


Not when you are the law


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Not when you are the law


The law is *ALWAYS* the law. Today it might be OK but tomorrow guns may be illegal. That's the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 3, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> The law is *ALWAYS* the law. Today it might be OK but tomorrow guns may be illegal. That's the law.


I'll keep my guns you can pound sand


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 3, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> ... It's criminals like you who ought to be denied access to guns in the first place and it is you OF COURSE who is screaming to keep your pop gun. It's as typcial as anyone can expect. The law is *ALWAYS* the law. Today it might be OK but tomorrow guns may be illegal. That's the law.






bigrebnc1775 said:


> I'll keep my guns you can pound sand


*I repeat ........... *


GLASNOST said:


> ... It's *criminals like you* who ought to be denied access to guns in the first place and it is you of course who is screaming to keep your pop gun.


... and you've just proved/admitted it.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Oct 4, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> *I repeat ........... *
> 
> ... and you've just proved/admitted it.


troll


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> *I repeat ........... *
> 
> ... and you've just proved/admitted it.


Keeping my rights makes me a criminal? I can live with that on the other hand you're not going to live without your rights


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> troll


No he's a useful tool that will be disgraded soon.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 4, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Keeping my rights makes me a criminal? ....


If the constitution or amendment is repealed (or amended) it won't be _*"your right"*_. Is that really too difficult for you to grasp? Jesus! You haven't even got the most rudimental understanding of the law. How old are you? 12?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> If the constitution or amendment is repealed (or amended) it won't be _*"your right"*_. Is that really too difficult for you to grasp? Jesus! You haven't even got the most rudimental understanding of the law. How old are you? 12?


My rights are mine to keep. The government didn't give them to me. They are mine not to be fucked with


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 4, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> My rights are mine to keep. The government didn't give them to me. They are mine not to be fucked with


Troll: *BLOCKED*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 4, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Troll: *BLOCKED*


Blocked🖕🤣 fucking sheeple like you will surrender their rights


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 8, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Why would I need to defend myself? The only would-be threat anywhere in the vicinity of my LZ is you, and a paper clip is all I need to neutralize you.



You are having delusions of adequacy.



GLASNOST said:


> *I repeat ........... *
> 
> ... and you've just proved/admitted it.



You'd turn neighbors over to the Stasi in a second.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Keeping my rights makes me a criminal? I can live with that on the other hand you're not going to live without your rights



He would be the first one to run to the local Gestapo officer and tell him his neighbor is hiding Jews in his attic.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 8, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> You are having delusions of adequacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll bet that you walk on your hands ....... backwards.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 8, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> I'll bet that you walk on your hands ....... backwards.


Are you on crack?


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 8, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> OK, I’m thinking …..
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> ...


Your word salad's trying to defend your positions have fallen flat, so if you actually were thinking, then it would show, but it appears you have nothing between your ears to think with. My points were precise and to the point, and it put you quickly into word salad spin mode...  ROTFLMBO 😂


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 8, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> the more he responds, the more I'm convinced he's a troll.


I'd say a Russian Agent.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 8, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> Your word salad's trying to defend your positions have fallen flat, so if you actually were thinking, then it would show, but it appears you have nothing between your ears to think with. My points were precise and to the point, and it put you quickly into word salad spin mode...  ROTFLMBO


You have supplied no explanation or answer to my question (only slander) plus you intentionally misquoted me or more precis contaminated my words with your own addition, which I am sure is against the forum rules.


beagle9 said:


> I am an idiot.


How do you like them apples?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> What part did you choose to not understand?


All of it


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 9, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> You have supplied no explanation or answer to my question (only slander) plus you intentionally misquoted me or more precis contaminated my words with your own addition, which I am sure is against the forum rules.
> 
> How do you like them apples?


Ok, then precisely list in separate lines your word's by each point you think you made, and then show my response to your supposed points made, and let's review Mr. Word salad maker.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> OK, I’m thinking …..
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> ...


Regradless of the second amendment I have the right to self-defense the government did not give me that right. The government is mandated by the US Constitution to protect that right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Regradless of the second amendment I have the right to self-defense the government did not give me that right. The government is mandated by the US Constitution to protect that right.


The thread premise is still a lie and wrong.

Registration doesn’t result in ‘confiscation.’

No guns in New York are being ‘confiscated.’

The thread premise is more rightwing demagoguery and dishonesty.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The thread premise is still a lie and wrong.
> 
> Registration doesn’t result in ‘confiscation.’
> 
> ...


Shut the fuck up liar


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The thread premise is still a lie and wrong.
> 
> *Registration doesn’t result in ‘confiscation.’*
> 
> ...


Can you *please* paste that on every page of this thread because I don't think the majority of the gun-culture nuts understand it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Can you *please* paste that on every page of this thread because I don't think the majority of the gun-culture nuts understand it.


Conservatives understand this and know it's true.

But that’s not what this is about.

It’s about dishonest conservatives propagating lies and engaging in demagoguery in an effort to keep the partisan base ignorant, angry, and engaged.

For conservatives it’s not about facts and the truth, it’s about lies and dishonesty – in this case the lie that registration results in ‘confiscation.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Shut the fuck up liar


The letter from the City clearly states that business owners are at liberty to relocate their firearms to another venue – indeed, they could simply take their guns home.

No guns are being ‘confiscated.’

That’s why the thread premise is a lie – and illustrates the fact that conservatives are dishonest and liars.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The letter from the City clearly states that business owners are at liberty to relocate their firearms to another venue – indeed, they could simply take their guns home.
> 
> No guns are being ‘confiscated.’
> 
> That’s why the thread premise is a lie – and illustrates the fact that conservatives are dishonest and liars.


But they must turn in their property. If not confiscation you stupid lying sack of dog shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives understand this and know it's true.
> 
> But that’s not what this is about.
> 
> ...


You're a God damn lying sack of shit that should have been aborted


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Can you *please* paste that on every page of this thread because I don't think the majority of the gun-culture nuts understand it.


Because it's a lie but a liar will repeat a lie.


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The thread premise is still a lie and wrong.
> 
> Registration doesn’t result in ‘confiscation.’
> 
> ...


The guns in NYC that need confiscated are the one's in the hands of gang's and criminal's, not the one's in the hands of the good citizen's.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives understand this and know it's true.
> 
> But that’s not what this is about.
> 
> ...


Look, I don't waste a single second of my time debating or arguing over childish crap about conservatives and liberals. It's all bull shit. I agree with you 100% about *"dishonesty"* and  *"propagating lies ... in an effort to keep"* Americans *"ignorant"* but I do not run a straight ticket about who is the most guilty regarding a variety of issues.

I'm sticking with you that it's a *" lie that registration results in confiscation"* and I would like to see you break some heads and make them see that you are right. Just don't include me in *"conservative"* bashing because I swing both ways depending ENTIRELY on the idividual issue.

So get in there and give them hell.I've got your back on this one.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Look, I don't waste a single second of my time debating or arguing over childish crap about conservatives and liberals. It's all bull shit. I agree with you 100% about *"dishonesty"* and  *"propagating lies ... in an effort to keep"* Americans *"ignorant"* but I do not run a straight ticket about who is the most guilty regarding a variety of issues.
> 
> I'm sticking with you that it's a *" lie that registration results in confiscation"* and I would like to see you break some heads and make them see that you are right. Just don't include me in *"conservative"* bashing because I swing both ways depending ENTIRELY on the idividual issue.
> 
> So get in there and give them hell.I've got your back on this one.











						Seizures of illegal guns rise in New York
					

There have been 662 illegal guns seized in six months.




					spectrumlocalnews.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> The guns in NYC that need confiscated are the one's in the hands of gang's and criminal's, not the one's in the hands of the good citizen's.


New York city isn't targeting gangs they are targeting legal gun owners


----------



## Hollie (Oct 9, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Can you *please* paste that on every page of this thread because I don't think the majority of the gun-culture nuts understand it.


Registration would be an obvious first step used by the left to identify firearms owners and to use that information for their hoped-for, Beto O'rourke style confiscation program.

We see how incompetent leftists are with keeping personal information, private.









						California gun owners leak: Riverside County sheriff calls for investigation: 'Concerning to us'
					

A California sheriff’s office is calling for a probe of the state’s Justice Department after a data breach affecting gun owners who applied for concealed carry permits.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Look, I don't waste a single second of my time debating or arguing over childish crap about conservatives and liberals. It's all bull shit. I agree with you 100% about *"dishonesty"* and  *"propagating lies ... in an effort to keep"* Americans *"ignorant"* but I do not run a straight ticket about who is the most guilty regarding a variety of issues.
> 
> I'm sticking with you that it's a *" lie that registration results in confiscation"* and I would like to see you break some heads and make them see that you are right. Just don't include me in *"conservative"* bashing because I swing both ways depending ENTIRELY on the idividual issue.
> 
> So get in there and give them hell.I've got your back on this one.


Again, conservatives know that it’s a lie, that registration doesn’t result in ‘confiscation.’

Conservatives will propagate the lie regardless.

And it’s very much about conservatives – the right’s lies about ‘confiscation’ are the same lies about elections being ‘stolen’ and lies about an ‘open border’; it’s who and what conservatives are: liars and dishonest.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Registration would be an obvious first step used by the left to identify firearms owners and to use that information for their hoped-for, Beto O'rourke style confiscation program.
> 
> We see how incompetent leftists are with keeping personal information, private.
> 
> ...


As if on cue – a lie from the dishonest right.

In this case both a slippery slope fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, conservatives know that it’s a lie, that registration doesn’t result in ‘confiscation.’
> 
> Conservatives will propagate the lie regardless.
> 
> And it’s very much about conservatives – the right’s lies about ‘confiscation’ are the same lies about elections being ‘stolen’ and lies about an ‘open border’; it’s who and what conservatives are: liars and dishonest.


There is no reason for law abiding people to have to tell the government what guns they own.

Do you have to tell the government who you voted for?
Do you have to tell the government what religion you are?
Do you have to tell the government where your private documents are kept?

If we put the same restrictions, costs and difficulty you all want on the right to own a gun on every other right you'd all be whining about it.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As if on cue – a lie from the dishonest right.
> 
> In this case both a slippery slope fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.


You are on a slippery slope of a hasty generalization fallacy. You insist you know that registration would not lead to confiscation with nothing more than the, “…. because I say so”, fallacy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You are on a slippery slope of a hasty generalization fallacy. You insist you know that registration would not lead to confiscation with nothing more than the, “…. because I say so”, fallacy.


Your post fails as a slippery slope fallacy because it’s baseless speculation.

Lying about something that ‘might’ happen doesn’t mean it will happen.

As for O’Rourke, he’s a single individual expressing a subjective, personal opinion – he neither ‘represents’ the ‘left’ nor ‘speaks’ for the ‘left’ – to claim otherwise is a classic hasty generalization fallacy.

Firearms have been registered for decades – and not once has there been a case of ‘confiscation’ the result of registration.

Moreover, government cannot confiscate private property absent due process and just compensation.

There are well over 300 million guns in the United States – it would be impossible to adjudicate and compensate for every firearm, the process would last centuries.

To avoid Fifth Amendment Takings Clause court challenges, government would need to pass legislation making the possession of firearms illegal – with firearms rendered as contraband, the Fifth Amendment would no longer apply.

But legislation making the possession of firearms illegal would be pointless – the courts would invalidate such a measure pursuant to _Heller/McDonald_.

And with legislation making the possession of firearms illegal invalidated, the Fifth Amendment comes back in play.

This is why the notion of firearms being ‘confiscated’ is a lie; as ridiculous as it is wrongheaded.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your post fails as a slippery slope fallacy because it’s baseless speculation.
> 
> Lying about something that ‘might’ happen doesn’t mean it will happen.
> 
> ...


There is no need for the government to know what guns any law abiding citizen owns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> There is no reason for law abiding people to have to tell the government what guns they own.
> 
> Do you have to tell the government who you voted for?
> Do you have to tell the government what religion you are?
> ...


Lying about guns isn’t the only things conservatives lie about.

Lying about guns is consistent with conservatives’ comprehensive dishonesty.

Topics on this very forum are proof of that.

In addition to conservatives lying about the election being ‘stolen’ and ‘open borders,’

Conservatives lied about IRS agents ‘spying’ on Americans.

Conservatives lied about COVID-19 vaccinations.

Conservatives lied about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson being ‘lenient’ on child pornography.

Conservatives lied about non-existent ‘voter fraud.’

And this just scratches the surface.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your post fails as a slippery slope fallacy because it’s baseless speculation.
> 
> Lying about something that ‘might’ happen doesn’t mean it will happen.
> 
> ...



Your post fails an an _appeal to hysterics_, fallacy. You failed to note that my post wrote out specifically, “Registration would be an obvious first step used by the left to identify firearms owners and to use that information for their hoped-for, Beto O'rourke style confiscation program.”

Nothing in my post speaks to absolutes. That’s in contrast to you insisting you know with certainty that registration _cannot_ lead to confiscation. That is something you obviously cannot know with certainty. 

While a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely, we know from the leftist politburo mouthpieces that such a repeal would be enabled and welcomed by leftists and their Constitution loathing minions.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The thread premise is still a lie and wrong.
> 
> Registration doesn’t result in ‘confiscation.’
> 
> ...



Except in France, Russia, Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Cuba….


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your post fails as a slippery slope fallacy because it’s baseless speculation.
> 
> Lying about something that ‘might’ happen doesn’t mean it will happen.
> 
> ...











						Governor Hochul Announces More Than 6,000 Illegal Gun Seizures as a Result of Interstate Gun Task Force Since January
					

Governor Hochul announced that police agencies have removed 6,007 illegal guns from communities across New York State during the first seven months of the year, a 20 percent increase when compared to the same timeframe in 2021.




					www.governor.ny.gov


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, conservatives know that it’s a lie, that registration doesn’t result in ‘confiscation.’
> 
> Conservatives will propagate the lie regardless.
> 
> And it’s very much about conservatives – the right’s lies about ‘confiscation’ are the same lies about elections being ‘stolen’ and lies about an ‘open border’; it’s who and what conservatives are: liars and dishonest.











						Governor Hochul Announces More Than 6,000 Illegal Gun Seizures as a Result of Interstate Gun Task Force Since January
					

Governor Hochul announced that police agencies have removed 6,007 illegal guns from communities across New York State during the first seven months of the year, a 20 percent increase when compared to the same timeframe in 2021.




					www.governor.ny.gov


----------



## Hugo Furst (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lying about guns isn’t the only things conservatives lie about.
> 
> Lying about guns is consistent with conservatives’ comprehensive dishonesty.
> 
> ...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lying about guns isn’t the only things conservatives lie about.


 their lying is no worse than what democrats put out.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 9, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> their lying is no worse than what democrats put out.


Their are no lies coming from conservatives about guns when it comes to democrats. I just posted two links about new York confiscating thousands of guns. Now how many of those guns were legally purchased and made illegal because of new York's gun laws?


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 9, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> New York city isn't targeting gangs they are targeting legal gun owners


That's a problem..


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 9, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your post fails an an _appeal to hysterics_, fallacy. You failed to note that my post wrote out specifically, “Registration would be an obvious first step used by the left to identify firearms owners and to use that information for their hoped-for, Beto O'rourke style confiscation program.”
> 
> Nothing in my post speaks to absolutes. That’s in contrast to you insisting you know with certainty that registration _cannot_ lead to confiscation. That is something you obviously cannot know with certainty.
> 
> While a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely, we know from the leftist politburo mouthpieces that such a repeal would be enabled and welcomed by leftists and their Constitution loathing minions.


Great response, and correct.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 9, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Registration would be an obvious first step used by the left to identify firearms owners and to use that information for their hoped-for, Beto O'rourke style confiscation program.
> 
> We see how incompetent leftists are with keeping personal information, private.
> 
> ...


Don't give me this "leftist" crap. Saying *"Registration would be an obvious first step used ..... for .... confiscation program"* is as ridiculous as saying *"the first step to communism is removing guns" *or* "the first step to revolution is to arm the population". *Catchphrases don't impress me.


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ..... it’s very much about conservatives .....


Bull shit.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 9, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Don't give me this "leftist" crap. Saying *"Registration would be an obvious first step used ..... for .... confiscation program"* is as ridiculous as saying *"the first step to communism is removing guns" *or* "the first step to revolution is to arm the population". *Catchphrases don't impress me.


You’re not very impressive.


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 9, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You’re not very impressive.


Impressed with himself maybe 

ROTFLMBO 😂


----------



## GLASNOST (Oct 9, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You’re not very impressive.


I don't care what you think of me. This isn't a popularity contest. You're the one who's trying to impress me but you've lost sight of the subject.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 10, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lying about guns isn’t the only things conservatives lie about.
> 
> Lying about guns is consistent with conservatives’ comprehensive dishonesty.
> 
> ...



Off topic.

There is absolutely no reason for the government to know what and how many guns a law abiding citizen owns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 10, 2022)

GLASNOST said:


> Don't give me this "leftist" crap. Saying *"Registration would be an obvious first step used ..... for .... confiscation program"* is as ridiculous as saying *"the first step to communism is removing guns" *or* "the first step to revolution is to arm the population". *Catchphrases don't impress me.


Well short bus registration does lead to confiscation. It's a historical proven fact. How did Australia do it's mandatory gun buy back?


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Off topic.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason for the government to know what and how many guns a law abiding citizen owns.


Exactly right..... Unless the government has an Anti-American agenda, then it damned sure doesn't need to be known.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

beagle9 said:


> Exactly right..... Unless the government has an Anti-American agenda, then it damned sure doesn't need to be known.


It's all about subjugating the populous


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's all about subjugating the populous


I believe it.


----------

