# Repeal the 2nd Amendment?



## Dante Reawakened (May 28, 2022)

Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?

This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?



Can you control yourselves and hold back the political and personal attacks on the OP?









						Stevens, J., Dissenting: The Legacy of Heller
					

This article focuses on the late Justice Stevens's opinions and commentary on the Second Amendment, demonstrating his approach to law and judging.




					judicature.duke.edu


----------



## Abatis (May 28, 2022)

At least Justice Stevens, for all his constitutional taffy-pulling, finally came to the realization that to enact the gun laws he and other liberals want, the Constitution would need to be altered.

It is a bit unclear how rescinding the 2ndA would get us to that goal since the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 146 years, that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, thus the RKBA in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

Next problem, where are you going to find the 38+ states required to ratify a new federal amendment, surrendering the rights of _their_ citizens to complete federal control?


----------



## Concerned American (May 28, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?
> 
> ...


Amendments to the constitution require a vote of 2/3 of both houses and ratification by 37 states if memory serves, I could be wrong.  In any case, it is not an easy task, nor should it be.  I think a snowball in hell has a better chance of survival.


----------



## task0778 (May 28, 2022)

There are two ways to repeal an amendment. One way is for the proposed amendment to be passed by the House and the Senate with two-thirds majority votes. Then, the proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The second way to repeal an amendment is to have a Constitutional Convention. It would take two-thirds of state legislatures to call for this convention and the states would draft amendments, which would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Considering the high threshold for making such a change to the Constitution, it's unlikely that the Second Amendment will be repealed.  As Concerned American said, "I think a snowball in hell has a better chance of survival.".

Could we, should we, get rid of the 2nd Amendment?


Could we?  NO.  Not anytime soon anyway.

Should we?  NO.  I want the right to protect myself and my family in my own home.  I should also have the right to go hunting if I want to or go to a Rod and Gun Club and hang with friends or associates there.  And I should be able to carry a weapon in public to defend myself if necessary.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?
> 
> ...



I think we should at the very least amend it to be more in line with the concept of the militia and not just the random dude on the street.  

We also need to clarify and possibly rein in what counts as "infringement" of that right.  For instance there's no "infringement" of the right if we simply ask for everyone with guns to be on a central registry.  There's no infringement of the right if the government knows where the guns are.

While it's not part of the 2A we could also do with eliminating concealed and open carry.  There's literally no reason for a modern civilized nation to look like some Wild West Fiction where everyone is struttin' around packin' heat.  That's not rational.


----------



## Peace (May 28, 2022)

You will always lack the votes in the Senate to get any amendment passed and you will never get the amount of states needed, so it is a moot point and exercise…


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Should we?  NO.  I want the right to protect myself and my family in my own home.



Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.

But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself.  Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun?  Shouldn't be.    If the gun is to protect yourself then there's no reason there can't be a registry.



task0778 said:


> I should also have the right to go hunting if I want to or go to a Rod and Gun Club and hang with friends or associates there.



Agreed.



task0778 said:


> And I should be able to carry a weapon in public to defend myself if necessary.



Disagree.  This isn't a wild west movie.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Pay up your insurance. Come get them.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.


Lol, always bring up this worn out bullshit.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Lol, always bring up this worn out bullshit.



I understand you don't like it when science finds results that don't make you happy, but sadly it is a part of life.

If you have data that disagrees with the studies you should DEFINITELY PUBLISH!  It would be good to see it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?


In theory, yes – the Constitution would need to be amended to repeal the Second Amendment.

Needless to say, that’s not going to happen – nor should it.

As with the rest of the Constitution, and consistent with the Framers’ intent, it’s the role of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Pay up your insurance. Come get them.



All these "threat posts" about "come and get 'em, but have your insurance" always come across as kind of funny.


----------



## Oddball (May 28, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?
> 
> ...


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> All these "threat posts" about "come and get 'em, but have your insurance" always come across as kind of funny.


Go for it. What you waiting for? Oh wait, I know what you're waiting for. Someone else to do it.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Go for it.



And what will you do about it if I do?


----------



## Oddball (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> All these "threat posts" about "come and get 'em, but have your insurance" always come across as kind of funny.


if you believe that to be so, then shut up and butch up, bitch.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> And what will you do about it if I do?


Shoot anyone who tries to disarm me.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I understand you don't like it when science finds results that don't make you happy, but sadly it is a part of life.
> 
> If you have data that disagrees with the studies you should DEFINITELY PUBLISH!  It would be good to see it.


Lol, delusional lies, all.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Lol, delusional lies, all.



Lies?  How is asking you to publish your results showing the error in the studies a "lie"?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2022)

“Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.” _ibid_

And, also in theory, it’s possible that a future Supreme Court could overturn _Heller_, abandoning the individual right interpretation and restoring the collective right interpretation.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Shoot anyone who tries to disarm me.



Yeah, hence my posting of the snarky .jpeg


I'm not really questioning your manhood, but I kind of doubt all these fantasies about how you are going to stop the evil doers who want to take your precious guns will go down in quite the manner you think.

Think about the Gravy Seals at the Jan 6 insurrection.  They were there to take back America.  TAKE BACK AMERICA from a FRAUDULENT ELECTION!  They were carrying zipties with plans to take some hostages and get Congress to MAKE THINGS RIGHT.

They lasted all of 6 hours or so and then most went home to watch TV and brag on instagram about what they did. 

You'll forgive me if I assume you are cut from a similar cloth.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Lies?  How is asking you to publish your results showing the error in the studies a "lie"?


Typical double talking leftist bullshit. Why don't  you go after criminals leave the rest of us alone?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

Oddball said:


> if you believe that to be so, then shut up and butch up, bitch.



I honestly don't know what you are suggesting here.  But I'm sure it's biting.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.” _ibid_
> 
> And, also in theory, it’s possible that a future Supreme Court could overturn _Heller_, abandoning the individual right interpretation and restoring the collective right interpretation.


Come get them


----------



## Oddball (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I honestly don't know what you are suggesting here.  But I'm sure it's biting.


That's because leftists are dullards by nature.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Typical double talking leftist bullshit.



How is it "doubletalking"?  Are you just grabbing random words at this point?



butchyboy said:


> Why you go after criminals leave the rest of us alone?



We did.  You might recall Clinton passing the 3 Strikes laws.  Of course that wound up being a complete disaster as low-level drug offenders were most of what got caught.  

America currently has the highest prison population on earth so I think we are clearly getting the "Lock 'em up" part done quite well.  Perhaps you can explain why so many other first world countries DON'T have our level of gun homicides AND have much, much, much lower prison populations.

Or you could just grab another random word and accuse me of it.  How about "usury".  Complain to me about my usurious behavior.

That'd be great.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

Oddball said:


> That's because leftists are dullards by nature.



Fair enough.  But it could also be that folks like you are just really bad at forming a coherent and transparent point.

I don't know...mainly because I read at something higher than a 4th grade level.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 28, 2022)

> Even Vice President Dick Cheney joined an amicus brief supporting Heller.


'Nuff said.


----------



## Concerned American (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> everyone with guns to be on a central registry.


Why?  This is what dictatorial governments say just before gun confiscation.  It is none of their business whether I own a gun or not.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> How is it "doubletalking"?  Are you just grabbing random words at this point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Leftist trash don't accept explanations. All anyone explaining anything to you will get is more spin and deflection. You all behave the exact same way. Pretty tiring listening to your half baked bullshit over and over.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Fair enough.  But it could also be that folks like you are just really bad at forming a coherent and transparent point.
> 
> I don't know...mainly because I read at something higher than a 4th grade level.


Same leftist commie babble, always.


----------



## Concerned American (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I understand you don't like it when science finds results that don't make you happy


HaHaHa!  I heard this line of BS all during the scamdemic.  Provide some science and maybe people would like it.  You leftists figure you just have to say "follow the science" and that is the answer.  You don't know what science is.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Leftist trash don't accept explanations.



You didn't explain anything.



butchyboy said:


> All anyone explaining anything to you will get is more spin and deflection. You all behave the exact same way. Pretty tiring listening to your half baked bullshit over and over.



Again, you forgot to work in "usurious".  

OK...how about this.  Accuse me of "simony" in your next post.

Thanks!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> HaHaHa!  I heard this line of BS all during the scamdemic.



Oh the one where over a million Americans died?  Did you now!



Concerned American said:


> Provide some science and maybe people would like it.  You leftists figure you just have to say "follow the science" and that is the answer.  You don't know what science is.



Well, I do have my degrees in science so that's going to be a problem I guess.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You didn't explain anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Before I block you how about just accusing you of what you are? A lying commie bastard.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Why?  This is what dictatorial governments say just before gun confiscation.  It is none of their business whether I own a gun or not.



Well, the current dictatorship you live under does it for cars and a lot of other things.  I mean you are tracked for how many boxes of Sudafed you want to buy at the drug store.  Yet somehow we beleaguered Americans thrive.

I'm curious why a gun registry is so onerous if there's nothing bad about guns.  If guns are just there to protect yourself I'm not sure why you would worry about a registry.

Let's say the government wanted to disarm you.  Without a registry they might come to your home and you would do a "Ruby Ridge" standoff for a few days and then ultimately be killed.  WITH a registry they'd come to your home knowing how many guns you had so the standoff would probably be a bit shorter.

Either way you are losing your guns.


----------



## Concerned American (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Oh the one where over a million Americans died? Did you now!


Yeah, that science, that they contradicted stating that ONLY 6% of those fatalities came from covid exclusively.  The other 94% were people who had terminal comorbidities, moron.  What was that about "science that doesn't agree with you?"


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Before I block you how about just accusing you of what you are? A lying commie bastard.



Your logic astounds me.  You have accused me of a bunch of different things now, *none of which were in any way related to anything I said.*

But then I'm REALLY a usurious monster who is guilty of simony so what would I know?


----------



## Concerned American (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, I do have my degrees in science so that's going to be a problem I guess.


You should have listened while you getting them.  It is clear you wasted your money.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Yeah, that science, that they contradicted stating that ONLY 6% of those fatalities came from covid exclusively.  The other 94% were people who had terminal comorbidities, moron.  What was that about "science that doesn't agree with you?"



You will believe anything.  That will come in handy for the people who REALLY want to take away your rights.  You will just give them up freely. 

Weak mental processes are far more dangerous to your freedom than you know at this time.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> You should have listened while you getting them.  It is clear you wasted your money.



You are starting to bore me. Please try to change it up and make it more interesting.  Get back to random accusations.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> a
> 
> If you have data that disagrees with the studies you should DEFINITELY PUBLISH!  It would be good to see it.


No valid study says anything like what you claim the one that does was debunked LONG AGO.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2022)

“…we agree with Justice Stevens that the Second Amendment, properly understood, is not a legal impediment to the kinds of reasonable gun regulations that form the mainstream of the U.S. gun debate — things like expanded background checks, prohibitions on unreasonably powerful weapons, and limits on possession by especially dangerous persons. In keeping with _Heller’s_ admonition (echoed in _McDonald_) that gun rights are not absolute, the number and percentage of successful legal challenges claiming a violation of the Second Amendment remains quite low. That low rate of success makes even more sense when one considers that stringent gun regulations are rare, leaving only the most reasonable and popular regulations open to challenge. This is not a target-rich environment for gun rights litigators.” _supra_

The question, of course, is that however reasonable a firearm regulation might be, how effective is that regulation; does it foment actual public safety, is the perception of public safety sufficient to justify that regulation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Come get them


An example of the dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity common to most on the right, and why honest, good faith discussion of the Second Amendment is impossible with conservatives – the right’s propensity for lies and fearmongering.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; guns are not going to be ‘taken.’


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No valid study says anything like what you claim the one that does was debunked LONG AGO.



Show me the citation in which it was debunked.  Not just your personal feelings or a post you wrote on "Randos.org".

Show me how the data was flawed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Show me the citation in which it was debunked.  Not just your personal feelings or a post you wrote on "Randos.org".
> 
> Show me how the data was flawed.


Look it up your self you are to ignorant to accept my take.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look it up your self you are to ignorant to accept my take.



Sorry, not gonna do that.  You claimed it was debunked.  If you don't care enough to show it was debunked then I will proceed as if you didn't say anything at all.

Your point is meaningless unless you back it up.

(Don't worry, that's not an accusation, I've done it too from time to time.  Sometimes it just gets too hard to keep looking stuff up.  But just so you know, your point has no value to me if it has no value to you.)


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An example of the dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity common to most on the right, and why honest, good faith discussion of the Second Amendment is impossible with conservatives – the right’s propensity for lies and fearmongering.
> 
> No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; guns are not going to be ‘taken.’


Lying as usual. Quit screwing around commie and come get them! And besides communist double talk, what is a good faith discussion?


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I think we should at the very least amend it to be more in line with the concept of the militia and not just the random dude on the street.
> 
> We also need to clarify and possibly rein in what counts as "infringement" of that right.  For instance there's no "infringement" of the right if we simply ask for everyone with guns to be on a central registry.  There's no infringement of the right if the government knows where the guns are.
> 
> While it's not part of the 2A we could also do with eliminating concealed and open carry.  There's literally no reason for a modern civilized nation to look like some Wild West Fiction where everyone is struttin' around packin' heat.  That's not rational.



In the 1920s the German government made the argument for a central gun registry…the people believed the government when it told them the registry would make them safer, because the government would protect them

15 years later, the new people who controlled the government, the nazis, used that centralized gun registry to disarm Jews and their political enemies……

They then went on to murder 15 million men, women, and children

So no thank you on a gun registry….

Then, you could attempt to show us what a gun registry has to do with safety……

In the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that actual criminals did not have to register their illegal guns….since it would be a violation of their Right against self incrimination.

And again….what does a gun registry actually do?

Canada tried to register 3 million rifles…..the cost became prohibitive and the police said it didn’t help them solve or prevent crimws


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.” _ibid_
> 
> And, also in theory, it’s possible that a future Supreme Court could overturn _Heller_, abandoning the individual right interpretation and restoring the collective right interpretation.



Let me help you……..

Most left wing, anti-gun fanatics pretending to be real linguists and historians,pretend that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it actually says because they hate guns and want them banned….

There, fixed that for you


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.
> 
> But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself.  Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun?  Shouldn't be.    If the gun is to protect yourself then there's no reason there can't be a registry.
> 
> ...



I showed you the study that information came from and the author….Arthur kellerman, was called out for how poorly it was done and did it over….revising his number downward from 47 to 1, all the way to 2.1 to 1


And that still didn’t fix the problems with his work since he used specific populations with the worst problems as his sample group….


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> In the 1920s the German government made the argument for a central gun registry…the people believed the government when it told them the registry would make them safer, because the government would protect them



Oh god, not Germany again.

Why do you guys ignore TODAY and the rest of the world in preference to the "worst case scenario"?



2aguy said:


> So no thank you on a gun registry….



Because there's only two positions:  Murderous DIctatorship or Weekly Child Culling.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I showed you the study that information came from and the author….Arthur kellerman, was called out for how poorly it was done and did it over….revising his number downward from 47 to 1, all the way to 2.1 to 1
> 
> 
> And that still didn’t fix the problems with his work since he used specific populations with the worst problems as his sample group….



I don't recall that.  Please point me to the study.  Or when I've got some time I'll try to find a reference for Kellerman.  I'm a professional researcher I'm often called on to find other people's points.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Oh god, not Germany again.
> 
> Why do you guys ignore TODAY and the rest of the world in preference to the "worst case scenario"?
> 
> ...



Moron, the worst case scenario is why we have the 2nd Amendment

Just like when they talk about why we need modern fire prevention they talk about the worst school fire and the worst sweat shop factory fire…..you dope.

And it isn’t just Germany…..Russia murdered 25 million, China murdered 70 million, the Rwandans murdered 500,000….

Those are all the freaking worst case scenarios that we have a 1nd Amendment to prevent….

Then you have the rapists, robbers and murder era who are local worst case scenarios….


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I don't recall that.  Please point me to the study.  Or when I've got some time I'll try to find a reference for Kellerman.  I'm a professional researcher I'm often called on to find other people's points.




Here........everything on the research you keep using....

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home | NEJM

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## FJB (May 28, 2022)

If we revoke the second amendment then the crime rate is going to rise and everything that our troops died fighting for would be in vain. Not a good thought to have on Memorial Day weekend. So many soldiers are probably rolling in their graves right now.


----------



## task0778 (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.



I have some doubts about such studies, generally for every study that says X another one will say Y.  And the responsibility for a gun in the home is on the gun owner.  




Cardinal Carminative said:


> But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself.



Thank you.




Cardinal Carminative said:


> Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun?



I don't need a bunch of crazy anti-gun people protesting outside my home.  




Cardinal Carminative said:


> Disagree. This isn't a wild west movie.



This comment is about carrying a weapon in public.  There's a lotta crazies out there, road rage and all that.  If somebody pulls a gun and starts firing at me I want to be able to shoot back.  In a wild west movie nobody dies, but in real life it does happen.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

task0778 said:


> In a wild west movie nobody dies, but in real life it does happen.


That's what leftists get off over. Notice they never try to fix the school murders!


----------



## FJB (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> That's what leftists get off over. Notice they never try to fix the school murders!




Yet they don't seem to be against cars and look how many deaths they have caused.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

task0778 said:


> I have some doubts about such studies, generally for every study that says X another one will say Y.  And the responsibility for a gun in the home is on the gun owner.



I've only ever seen studies that say that guns in the home are more of a danger to the owners.  But, again, that's not necessarily true for EVERY home with guns.  But it certainly explains America's off-the-charts level of gun homicide rates.



task0778 said:


> I don't need a bunch of crazy anti-gun people protesting outside my home.



Well, in America no one is guaranteed freedom from THAT.  Some women have to endure even worse just going to Planned Parenthood offices.



task0778 said:


> This comment is about carrying a weapon in public.  There's a lotta crazies out there, road rage and all that.  If somebody pulls a gun and starts firing at me I want to be able to shoot back.  In a wild west movie nobody dies, but in real life it does happen.



But it's the problem.  The problem is too many Americans have this image of themselves as John Wayne and they are 100% sure they will be flawless in their assessment of the situation in the street and will be able to do what a man's gotta do.

Unfortunately even police officers say in an active shooter situation a "good guy with a gun" is more of an impediment and may even be shot by the police since they don't know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy (lacking black cowboy hats and all).

My point isn't meant to be totally facetious.  I am serious that I fear that 99% of the people who talk so big about how they are ready to defend themselves in the worst of situations will, in fact, turn out to make the situation far more worse.  There's almost no study that finds the "good guy with a gun" scenario as anything more than an occasional case.  It just doesn't happen much.  Certainly not at the rate of American gun ownership rates.

If the "Good guy with a gun" scenario were true this country would be the safest place on earth.  But we are not.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

FJB said:


> Yet they don't seem to be against cars and look how many deaths they have caused.



You cannot take my car from me.  I use it to protect my family.  I'm ready to run over any evil-doer who plans on invading my home and hurting my family.

That's why I got the car in the first place.  And you can take it from my cold dead hands.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> That's what leftists get off over. Notice they never try to fix the school murders!



Would you characterize the Right as being anti-gun?  

No, you guys want to "fix school murders" by mandating locked doors.  Or arming 3rd grade teachers _*after you all just watched HIGHLY TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED FOR YEARS ON ACTIVE SHOOTERS sit by rather than engaging the gunman because that would be dangerous*_.

What chance do you HONESTLY think a third grade teacher would have when the POLICE are unable to address the situation?

Go to a university and visit the elementary school education classes to see the teachers.  These are NOT usually the people who spend their freetime target practicing with human-shaped targets.


----------



## Abatis (May 28, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.” _ibid_



And Stevens and the cunning linguists would be wrong.  SCOTUS has been clear and definitive that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.  Of what import and significance do words -- *upon which the right to arms does not depend* -- have of the recognition, exercise and protection of the right?

The premise of the right being conditioned upon and/or qualified by the militia connotation of "bear arms" also fails because of SCOTUS precedent.  In saying the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution, the Court is declaring that arguing the right is qualified by or conditioned upon a citizen's attachment or enrollment in a structure (the organized militia) that is created by the Constitution and is entirely dependent itself on the Constitution for its existence, is preposterous.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And, also in theory, it’s possible that a future Supreme Court could overturn _Heller_, abandoning the individual right interpretation and restoring the collective right interpretation.



How????  The "militia right interpretation" was never a position held by the Supreme Court, it was entirely a diversion emanating from and contained within, the *lower *federal courts.

There is no Supreme Court "militia right" holding or precedent to claw back and reassert.

The "militia right" theory *did* exist in the southern states, to facilitate and justify their racist discriminatory policies.  Since Blacks were barred from serving in the militia, (by federal militia law), southern states declared their state constitution's RKBA to only be recognized for Whites. That's the provenance of the theory you embrace . . .

The entire "militia right" theory (in the federal system) is a mirage, there is _*nothing*_ there.  It was resurrected from its racist roots and inserted in the federal system in 1942 for the singular purpose of justifying ignoring SCOTUS in _Miller_.

The four _Heller_ liberal dissenting Justices, by confirming the individual right has _always_ been the interpretation represented in SCOTUS precedent, and that the individual right was the only interpretation represented in the three _Heller_ opinions, (majority and two dissents), has forever closed the door on your fantasy.

.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I've only ever seen studies that say that guns in the home are more of a danger to the owners.  But, again, that's not necessarily true for EVERY home with guns.  But it certainly explains America's off-the-charts level of gun homicide rates.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong….guns in the home don’t explain the homicide rate…..the policies of left wing politicians, judges and prosecutors have increased out gun crime rate which was going down for 27 years before the democrats launched their war on police, and their desire to release the most violent and dangerous criminals......



You have to explain this......and you can't......

*Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...*

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Would you characterize the Right as being anti-gun?
> 
> No, you guys want to "fix school murders" by mandating locked doors.  Or arming 3rd grade teachers _*after you all just watched HIGHLY TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED FOR YEARS ON ACTIVE SHOOTERS sit by rather than engaging the gunman because that would be dangerous*_.
> 
> ...




And we just had a woman this week....the same week as the school shooting..... with a concealed carry permit...not a police officer, not a Navy SEAL, not a SWAT team member kill a mass public shooter who had an AR-15 and she did it with her pistol......

*A woman with a concealed handgun stopped a mass shooting this week after a man attacked a graduation party in Charleston, West Virginia.*
*
"**Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston," location Fox 11 reported about the incident. "Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday near the Vista View Apartment complex. No injuries were reported from those at the party. Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed."









						The Near Mass Shooting Most of the Media Won't Tell You About
					

A woman with a concealed handgun stopped a mass shooting this week after a man attacked a graduation party in Charleston, West Virginia. "Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying




					townhall.com
				



*


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Would you characterize the Right as being anti-gun?
> 
> No, you guys want to "fix school murders" by mandating locked doors.  Or arming 3rd grade teachers _*after you all just watched HIGHLY TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED FOR YEARS ON ACTIVE SHOOTERS sit by rather than engaging the gunman because that would be dangerous*_.
> 
> ...



You have to explain this.....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

*Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.*
*
Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.*

BREAKING: Man Opens Fire At Oklahoma Walmart, Confronted By Armed Citizen, Report Says

Two people were killed at a Walmart in Oklahoma by a man who opened fire in the parking lot on Monday *before turning the weapon on himself after an armed citizen confronted him.
------*

*The assailant, who has not yet been identified, shot and killed a man and a woman in the parking lot and when he was “confronted by an armed citizen, he then turned the gun on himself,” The Daily Mail reported.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 28, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Lying as usual. Quit screwing around commie and come get them! And besides communist double talk, what is a good faith discussion?


That’s all we get from conservatives: dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity – along with fearmongering and lies.

Conservatives are cowards as well, they lack to courage to engage in a good faith, fact-based discussions concerning the Second Amendment – because they know facts and the truth aren’t on their side, as usual.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home | NEJM
> 
> After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;



OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.

Got it.  So far everything lines up.




2aguy said:


> 3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research



Hmm, testimony before Congress from a public advocate for guns.  Very loaded language here with "incredibly flawed".  I'd feel much better if any of the data he presents.  I have not yet found the place where Kellerman RETRACTS his study.  I'd be much more interested in seeing that.  

But Kellerman isn't the only to find associations.

*" Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.*"




__





						ACP Journals
					





					www.acpjournals.org
				







2aguy said:


> Nine Myths Of Gun Control
> 
> Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"



Just going to assume what is clearly a pro-gun (2Asisters.org) as a biased resource.  I hope you will forgive me for preferring peer reviewed articles to 2Asisters.org citations.




2aguy said:


> *In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *



It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in the research.  That's why it's great to find other resources that ALSO find increased odds of danger to those in the home where guns are kept.

Such as this article:

"The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. " 








						Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature
					

This article reviews the most commonly cited, representative, empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the associat…




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You have to explain this.....
> 
> Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]
> 
> ...



Just a pro-tip, don't run up against COPYRIGHT laws by copying entire chunks of the articles.  Pick your most appropriate points.

Thanks (former IP analyst here, so I kind of alert on these things)


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.
> 
> Got it.  So far everything lines up.
> 
> ...




No...there is a strong correlation between criminals living in the home, drug addicts living in the home, and alcoholics and domestic abusers living in the home...those are the problem...not the gun or the normal people who own guns...as the Kellerman study tried to hide...


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.
> 
> Got it.  So far everything lines up.
> 
> ...




I posted it in that post........the 2.7 number is from the redo of his study....


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.
> 
> Got it.  So far everything lines up.
> 
> ...




Yeah...didn't see them mention whether criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics or domestic abusers in the home were anywhere near the actual reason for the homicide in the home.......but that isn't helpful when you simply want to ban guns...


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s all we get from conservatives: dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity – along with fearmongering and lies.
> 
> Conservatives are cowards as well, they lack to courage to engage in a good faith, fact-based discussions concerning the Second Amendment – because they know facts and the truth aren’t on their side, as usual.


lol, always the same twisted lies.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> OK, do there's a strong relationship between guns in the home and the increased risk of homicide.
> 
> Got it.  So far everything lines up.
> 
> ...




Yeah.......

*Across states, more guns = more homicide*

*Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997 *

American Journal of Public Health, December 2002, Vol 92, No. 12

Very basic control variables that they have used in other papers are not used here: No fixed effects for state and year. There is a big benefit to using so-called panel data, where you can more accurately account for differences in crime rates across states or over time.  This method is called “fixed effects.”  Ask any academic who deals with this type of data, and they will tell you that these are basic controls that all papers in this area account for.



			https://crimeresearch.org/2018/12/notes-on-the-harvard-injury-control-research-center-page-on-homicide/


----------



## Abatis (May 28, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives are cowards as well, they lack to courage to engage in a good faith, fact-based discussions concerning the Second Amendment – because they know facts and the truth aren’t on their side, as usual.



By all means, let's hear your good faith, fact-based rebuttal to *my post #63* above.

What you hold up to be your impenetrable scholarship, is just cut-n-paste propaganda.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...there is a strong correlation between criminals living in the home, drug addicts living in the home, and alcoholics and domestic abusers living in the home...those are the problem...not the gun or the normal people who own guns...as the Kellerman study tried to hide...



"hide"?  

You have evidence that Kellermen et al KNOWINGLY hide data?

That's a pretty big crime in science. Do you have evidence to that effect?  That it wasn't just an oversight or error, but that it was HIDDEN?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I posted it in that post........the 2.7 number is from the redo of his study....



I didn't see any journal citation.  I just saw the pro-gun advocate making a claim.  I'll have to check back over to see if he said where the article was.  I need a bit of unbiased data for this.


----------



## 2aguy (May 28, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> "hide"?
> 
> You have evidence that Kellermen et al KNOWINGLY hide data?
> 
> That's a pretty big crime in science. Do you have evidence to that effect?  That it wasn't just an oversight or error, but that it was HIDDEN?




He had the information in his study and ignored it....as the people who reviewed his work stated........then, when he redid the study, he continued to ignore the very thing that made the first study flawed....


----------



## Unkotare (May 28, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> ...


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

Abatis said:


> At least Justice Stevens, for all his constitutional taffy-pulling, finally came to the realization that to enact the gun laws he and other liberals want, the Constitution would need to be altered.
> 
> It is a bit unclear how rescinding the 2ndA would get us to that goal since the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 146 years, that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, thus the RKBA in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.
> 
> Next problem, where are you going to find the 38+ states required to ratify a new federal amendment, surrendering the rights of _their_ citizens to complete federal control?


You’re a bit confused here.  The amendment protects the right — without it things change   

Would USA need a new amendment? Not at all.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Amendments to the constitution require a vote of 2/3 of both houses and ratification by 37 states if memory serves, I could be wrong.  In any case, it is not an easy task, nor should it be.  I think a snowball in hell has a better chance of survival.





			What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?
> 
> ...


Of course we *can* collectively seek to repeal the 2d Amendment. I doubt it would be repealed. But the Constitution itself was written with the prospect of changing it written in to it.

John Paul Stevens’ concept is ill-advised. But if the libs and progs want a convention of the States, I’m game. They may not like what comes out of the effort to modify the Constitution.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In theory, yes – the Constitution would need to be amended to repeal the Second Amendment.
> 
> Needless to say, that’s not going to happen – nor should it.
> 
> As with the rest of the Constitution, and consistent with the Framers’ intent, it’s the role of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.


Why shouldn’t it?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

Oddball said:


> View attachment 651072


Thanx for contributing the usual


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Oddball said:


> View attachment 651072


Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer. Excellent post.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

Unkotare said:


>


Another useless contributor


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Of course we *can* collectively seek to repeal the 2d Amendment. I doubt it would be repealed. But the Constitution itself was written with the prospect of changing it written in to it.
> 
> John Paul Stevens’ concept is ill-advised. But if the libs and progs want a convention of the States, I’m game. They may not like what comes out of the effort to modify the Constitution.


I believe neither would you like any outcome


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Unkotare said:


>


Very good and concise post!  Well done.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Very good and concise post!  Well done.


The gang is all here now.  Losers and bullies who travel the threads in packs and contribute nothing


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> I believe neither would you like any outcome


Ok. You could be right, for a change. I _might_ not like the outcome. But I’d sign a petition today in my new home state to have us convene a Convention of the States. Let’s be bold. Let’s both confront the risks associated with such a Convention.


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> The gang is all here now.  Losers and bullies who travel the threads in packs and contribute nothing


Actually, your ignorance is on full display. This thread asked a question. “How about ‘no?’” Is a perfectly valid and very concise answer.  So what your presently bitching about is unclear. Apparently you just don’t LIKE that particular answer.  Tough shit, you pansy. Then don’t ask.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Ok. You could be right, for a change. I _might_ not like the outcome. But I’d sign a petition today in my new home state to have us convene a Convention of the States. Let’s be bold. Let’s both confront the risks associated with such a Convention.


The law of unintended consequences would rule and rue the day

The framers had Adams and Madison and a handful of others who studied up on and researched what they could. — without preconceived notions and agendas other than what they thought would save the nation.  Those men started a civil war that turned neighbors, friends and family on each other.  Much slaughter and mayhem and suffering.  What they had was a common purpose :::   Do not let the grand experiment fail


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Actually, your ignorance is on full display. This thread asked a question. “How about ‘no?’” Is a perfectly valid and very concise answer.  So what your presently bitching about is unclear. Apparently you just don’t LIKE that particular answer.  Tough shit, you pansy. Then don’t ask.


Please don’t project your bitchiness.  Most others are not whiney bitches like you 

The ‘no’ lacks an explanatory context and is anything but concise. You confuse concise with other terms


----------



## Batcat (May 29, 2022)

task0778 said:


> There are two ways to repeal an amendment. One way is for the proposed amendment to be passed by the House and the Senate with two-thirds majority votes. Then, the proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The second way to repeal an amendment is to have a Constitutional Convention. It would take two-thirds of state legislatures to call for this convention and the states would draft amendments, which would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
> 
> Considering the high threshold for making such a change to the Constitution, it's unlikely that the Second Amendment will be repealed.  As Concerned American said, "I think a snowball in hell has a better chance of survival.".
> 
> ...


In recent years we have seen police departments in the big cities turn from proactive to reactive due to riots. Also many police departments are understaffed. Consequently it takes longer for the police to arrive when called. Often they arrive in time to put up crime science tape.

I don’t want to have to rely on the cops to save me or my family. Therefore I want  the right to own firearms. 

Criminals are not going to turn their firearms in if a law passes requiring all honest citizens to do so. If honest people don’t have firearms, home invasion will skyrocket.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 29, 2022)

Abatis said:


> At least Justice Stevens, for all his constitutional taffy-pulling, finally came to the realization that to enact the gun laws he and other liberals want, the Constitution would need to be altered.
> 
> It is a bit unclear how rescinding the 2ndA would get us to that goal since the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 146 years, that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, thus the RKBA in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.
> 
> Next problem, where are you going to find the 38+ states required to ratify a new federal amendment, surrendering the rights of _their_ citizens to complete federal control?



The Second Amendment is a "Constitutional Right", meaning it's guaranteed by the current Constitution. Were the 2A repealed, it'd not longer be a "Constitutional Right", it'd be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it's "a right" or not.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 29, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Ok. You could be right, for a change. I _might_ not like the outcome. But I’d sign a petition today in my new home state to have us convene a Convention of the States. Let’s be bold. Let’s both confront the risks associated with such a Convention.


“Could we, should we…”

Answering ‘no’ means what exactly


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> The law of unintended consequences would rule and rue the day
> 
> The framers had Adams and Madison and a handful of others who studied up on and researched what they could. — without preconceived notions and agendas other than what they thought would save the nation.  Those men started a civil war that turned neighbors, friends and family on each other.  Much slaughter and mayhem and suffering.  What they had was a common purpose :::   Do not let the grand experiment fail


Again. I’m content to take the chance. The notion of unintended consequences is exactly the risk both sides would have to confront. I’d sign a petition today to get my new home state to agree to a Convention of the States. 

You might rue the day. I don’t care. I’m aware of the risks. That’s why I said that the libs and progs MIGHT not like the outcome. I didn’t guarantee it. I certainly never suggested that I would like it, either. A risk is a risk. In this case, I think it’s urgent to take the risk. 

Mark Levin has called for a Convention of the States. A movement is underway. It might not come to fruition. But I’m hoping it does. 19 of the required 34 states have already approved it.


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Oddball said:


> if you believe that to be so, then shut up and butch up, bitch.


Is that any way to speak to PV?  

Lol!


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> “Could we, should we…”
> 
> Answering ‘no’ means what exactly


Are you criticizing your own thread headline?  Seems kind of silly. But hey. That’s just you being you.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.
> 
> But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself.  Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun?  Shouldn't be.    If the gun is to protect yourself then there's no reason there can't be a registry.
> 
> ...





Those "studies" were proven false long ago.


----------



## BackAgain (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Please don’t project your bitchiness.  Most others are not whiney bitches like you
> 
> The ‘no’ lacks an explanatory context and is anything but concise. You confuse concise with other terms


I’m not. You are. In fact, you’re being such a whiny bitch at the moment, I worry about whether you’re gonna run out of tampons.

The “no,” you dishonest whining bitch, is an  *answer to the question in your own thread headline.* If you don’t like a concise answer to your own question, don’t whine about it after  the fact. You stupid bitch. Make smarter thread headlines.

It’s not that difficult. Even a stupid whining bitch on the rag, like you, could do it.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Oh the one where over a million Americans died?  Did you now!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do have my degrees in science so that's going to be a problem I guess.





Bullshit.  You have no science background at all.


----------



## Concerned American (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I'm curious why a gun registry is so onerous


You're exactly why the second amendment exists.  BTW, there is no amendment guaranteeing the right to purchase sudafed.  Blame the democrats.


----------



## Abatis (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> You’re a bit confused here.  The amendment protects the right — without it things change



All the 2ndA "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

Read *Federalist 84*.



Dante Reawakened said:


> Would USA need a new amendment? Not at all.



The right to arms in no manner depends on the Constitution; it is a retained right with no aspect of the right ever conferred to the care and control of the federal government (unalienable).

The government would need a new amendment granting new powers to allow the federal government to impact the personal arms of the private citizen.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Why shouldn’t it?


Because Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions just 12 years ago.

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause was incorporated during the late 19th Century; the First Amendment was incorporated nearly 100 years ago.

It’s ridiculous to repeal an Amendment with so little case law, an Amendment whose scope governments and the courts have just begun to explore.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> The gang is all here now.  Losers and bullies who travel the threads in packs and contribute nothing


Yep.

Again, conservatives are cowards who lack the courage and capacity to engage in an intelligent discussion concerning the Second Amendment.

Conservatives invariably resort to fearmongering, ridiculous sophistry, and lies.


----------



## scruffy (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I understand you don't like it when science finds results that don't make you happy, but sadly it is a part of life.
> 
> If you have data that disagrees with the studies you should DEFINITELY PUBLISH!  It would be good to see it.


You simply fail to understand.

No one cares about your statistics


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?
> 
> ...


Yea ...still No


----------



## scruffy (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yep.
> 
> Again, conservatives are cowards who lack the courage and capacity to engage in an intelligent discussion concerning the Second Amendment.
> 
> Conservatives invariably resort to fearmongering, ridiculous sophistry, and lies.


All I'm going to tell you is, you'll never take my weapons. Period. That's all there is to say


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (May 29, 2022)




----------



## scruffy (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Either way you are losing your guns.


The chances of that are slim to none.

And Slim left town.


----------



## scruffy (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns;



Bullshit.

 Beto does, he said so himself.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> guns are not going to be ‘taken.’


This part you got right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?
> 
> ...


Repeal the second amendment shrugs 
Now how are you getting guns from the American subjects?


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 29, 2022)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> View attachment 651222



Sure.....................listen to this mental case, a kid in 2nd grade could do better.


Then the retard celebrates.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure.....................listen to this mental case, a kid in 2nd grade could do better.
> 
> 
> Then the retard celebrates.


You can't be triggered without a Trump


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yep.
> 
> Again, conservatives are cowards who lack the courage and capacity to engage in an intelligent discussion concerning the Second Amendment.
> 
> Conservatives invariably resort to fearmongering, ridiculous sophistry, and lies.


Lookie here the professional liar chimes in.


----------



## Blues Man (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.
> 
> But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself.  Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun?  Shouldn't be.    If the gun is to protect yourself then there's no reason there can't be a registry.
> 
> ...


Studies show that people with pools have a greater risk of drowning.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Studies show that people with pools have a greater risk of drowning.


You have a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver than being killed with a rifle.


----------



## Ringtone (May 29, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I’m not. You are. In fact, you’re being such a whiny bitch at the moment, I worry about whether you’re gonna run out of tampons.
> 
> The “no,” you dishonest whining bitch, is an  *answer to the question in your own thread headline.* If you don’t like a concise answer to your own question, don’t whine about it after  the fact. You stupid bitch. Make smarter thread headlines.
> 
> It’s not that difficult. Even a stupid whining bitch on the rag, like you, could do it.


Hey, *BackAgain*, I see that you're still yammering that I'm a vainglorious and tragically stupid tool who can't admit when he's wrong in your signature.

You forgot to mention the fact that your allegation stems from your mindless, pseudo-scientific notion that the laws of thermodynamics would necessarily obtain beyond the physical universe, that God, therefore, could not have created the universe and the laws of physics that govern it in the first place _because _. . . wait for it . . . the law of conservation would prohibit that.



You may have me on ignore, but everybody else will see the absurdity on which your allegation is predicated.  I think I'll repost this under your posts from time to time.


----------



## Ringtone (May 29, 2022)

Abatis said:


> At least Justice Stevens, for all his constitutional taffy-pulling, finally came to the realization that to enact the gun laws he and other liberals want, the Constitution would need to be altered.
> 
> It is a bit unclear how rescinding the 2ndA would get us to that goal since the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 146 years, that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, thus the RKBA in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.
> 
> Next problem, where are you going to find the 38+ states required to ratify a new federal amendment, surrendering the rights of _their_ citizens to complete federal control?


Correct! 

The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments entail rights that are inherent and, therefore, absolutely unbridgeable.  These rights preexist per the imperatives of natural law.  They cannot be granted, taken away, or transferred by the state.  Their natural expressions and exercises can only be illegitimately suppressed by the state.  There is no assertion whatsoever in the language of their enumeration that the ratification of the Constitution, let alone congressional decree, granted them.  In other words, the language of their enumeration, including that of the Fourth and Fifth in terms of their essence, assumes their prior existence.  The duly administered warrants of probable cause and the duly administered deprivations of due process per criminality do not violate them.

This is not to say that the other rights are not inherent in some sense.  Rather, like certain aspects of the Fourth and Fifth, they are rooted in the others and require additional explanation or specification.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that one may say or do whatever one bloody damn well pleases, which routinely confuses the stupid.  Rather, there is no natural right to violate the life, liberty, or the property of another in the first place.

Moreover, the suspensions of free expression and exercise vis-a-vis crises strictly go to the wellbeing of the body politic of the social contract.

Regarding their preexistent nature, the above is most especially true about the language of the First and Second.  Observe:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​
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 plain language of the Second Amendment's main clause, as the Federalist Papers evince and the Court has affirmed, firstly pertains to the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights are predicated on the imperatives of natural law regarding the inalienable rights of the people endowed by God (or nature if you please), not by governments. This inherent right of the people precedes the security of the several states, just as the militias of the several states precede the existence of Congress. It's important to keep in mind that under natural and constitutional law the right to keep and bear arms and the existence of the Militia are ontologically rooted in the people themselves.


----------



## Ringtone (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I think we should at the very least amend it to be more in line with the concept of the militia and not just the random dude on the street.
> 
> We also need to clarify and possibly rein in what counts as "infringement" of that right.  For instance there's no "infringement" of the right if we simply ask for everyone with guns to be on a central registry.  There's no infringement of the right if the government knows where the guns are.
> 
> While it's not part of the 2A we could also do with eliminating concealed and open carry.  There's literally no reason for a modern civilized nation to look like some Wild West Fiction where everyone is struttin' around packin' heat.  That's not rational.


Both open and especially concealed carry have their places.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He had the information in his study and ignored it



You don't understand how scientific papers work.  I once had a peer reviewed scientific article published and then a year or two later I was asked to peer review another article someone else wrote.  In that article they noted an oversight I and my coauthors had failed to deal with in our paper.  

Of course I voted to publish that paper so that my error would be known.  

Errors get made.  No one is hiding anything from anyone. 



2aguy said:


> ....as the people who reviewed his work stated........then, when he redid the study, he continued to ignore the very thing that made the first study flawed....



No, it sounds like he disagreed with their critique of his methods.

That's perfectly acceptable.

Remember:  just because YOU don't like the results does not mean that it is ipso facto flawed.  That's a very important lesson to learn in life.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

westwall said:


> Bullshit.  You have no science background at all.



You wouldn't take my challenge (post 20 posts with scientific descriptions/citations) that I made to you earlier and you ran away from...so we know what YOU lack.  

If you take my challenge you have a say.  Until then you are just a troll who can't even back up his own big talk.

Pathetic.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Studies show that people with pools have a greater risk of drowning.



That's why I put a pool in.  So that I could defend my home.  I assume evil doers who wish to invade my home and harm my precious family will sneak in the back and drown in the pool.  

Americans have a right to self defense....I just chose to do it with a MOAT.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You wouldn't take my challenge (post 20 posts with scientific descriptions/citations) that I made to you earlier and you ran away from...so we know what YOU lack.
> 
> If you take my challenge you have a say.  Until then you are just a troll who can't even back up his own big talk.
> 
> Pathetic.





I took your challenge and crushed you so bad you changed your name in shame.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

westwall said:


> I took your challenge and crushed you so bad you changed your name in shame.



You DID NOT take my challenge.  If you did, then show me the post.

You aren't LYING here are you?  You wouldn't LIE would you???


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You have a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver than being killed with a rifle.



At least a drunk driver has to get into a car *THAT IS REGISTERED*.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

scruffy said:


> The chances of that are slim to none.
> 
> And Slim left town.



There's a NEW sheriff in town now!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

scruffy said:


> You simply fail to understand.
> 
> No one cares about your statistics



LOL.  Statistics are for eggheads.  GUNS solve ALL the problems.  Got a problem?  Don't care to UNDERSTAND that problem?  Don't use statistics....USE A GUN.  

Guns.....Science for REAL men.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Yea ...still No
> 
> View attachment 651221



Like using a manga cartoon to push the idea of more guns in society?  Japan would like to register a complaint in the irony department.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> At least a drunk driver has to get into a car *THAT IS REGISTERED*.


But being registered didn't stop him and dead is dead. What makes you think all vehicles on the road are registered?


----------



## Flash (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I think we should at the very least amend it to be more in line with the concept of the militia and not just the random dude on the street.


That "random dude" in the street is an American citizen that enjoys individual liberty prescribed in the Bill of Rights.  The _Heller_ ruling said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual Liberty the same as the right to free speech and the right of religion.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> At least a drunk driver has to get into a car *THAT IS REGISTERED*.




Wow....that registration really did.....errrr...something......Right?

We know from history that gun registration is the first and necessary step for gun confisaction...

We know the history, you likely know this too, which is why you want gun registration.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wow....that registration really did.....errrr...something......Right?
> 
> We know from history that gun registration is the first and necessary step for gun confisaction...
> 
> We know the history, you likely know this too, which is why you want gun registration.


Wonder why he believes all vehicles on the road are registered?


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wonder why he believes all vehicles on the road are registered?




You wonder why he thinks registration matters.....of course, he knows he doesn't..


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You DID NOT take my challenge.  If you did, then show me the post.
> 
> You aren't LYING here are you?  You wouldn't LIE would you???





Yeah, I did.  I asked you simple questions that any real geologist could answer in a second.

But I asked them in a way you couldn't just Google them.  And you failed every time.

Simple, first year geology, encompassing physical and historical geology, and you failed every single one of them.

Because you ain't a geologist. 

You are a fraud.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You wonder why he thinks registration matters.....of course, he knows he doesn't..



Oh, then you guys would have NO PROBLEM with a gun registry then?  That's FANTASTIC!

Thanks!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, I did.  I asked you simple questions that any real geologist could answer in a second.



That wasn't the challenge.  That's why I wrote out what the challenge was that YOU ran away from like the coward you are.



westwall said:


> But I asked them in a way you couldn't just Google them.  And you failed every time.



You didn't say ANYTHING of value about ANY technical detail.  You mentioned some vague formation name.  

That's how I knew immediately that you don't know geology.  You think that all geologists know ALL fm names on earth. 

What a joke.



westwall said:


> Simple, first year geology, encompassing physical and historical geology, and you failed every single one of them.
> 
> Because you ain't a geologist.
> 
> You are a fraud.



I actually answered your questions.   But YOU, being the giant coward you are, can't show me 20 posts you have given which contain scientific information/citations.

What a wuss!  You talk so big, you simpleton troll.

B'caw!


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Oh, then you guys would have NO PROBLEM with a gun registry then?  That's FANTASTIC!
> 
> Thanks!




You really are stupid....

Gun registration is only desired by fascists like you because you need it before you ban and confiscate guns.....we know this from actual human history......

Besides that...you can't explain how gun registration actually does anything against gun crime.............Canada has registered guns, and their police it didn't help them solve even one crime.....


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That wasn't the challenge.  That's why I wrote out what the challenge was that YOU ran away from like the coward you are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





You failed.  You couldn't answer basic first year geology questions.  You are a cut and paste fraud.

Now, piss off.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (May 29, 2022)

Repeal of the second amendment would move cartel operational control of the border to operational control of the country.


----------



## Ringtone (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.” _ibid_
> 
> And, also in theory, it’s possible that a future Supreme Court could overturn _Heller_, abandoning the individual right interpretation and restoring the collective right interpretation.


Nonsense!  As the Court showed in _Heller_, most historians and certainly the bulk of historical understanding and practice tell us that it is necessarily an individual right.  You keep telling this lie as I incontrovertibly debunk it. 

It's an individual right, and always has been just like the Court unanimously observed in _Heller. _The 5-to-4 split in the decision was over the issue of regulation, not over the nature of the right. Obviously, if the right were not individually enforceable, the collective right of the Militia would be meaningless and unenforceable against the federal government given that the militias are subject to congressional control as "employed in the Service of the United States" for the purpose of national defense.

The Court held in _Heller_:

1. 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.​
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.​​(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.​​(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.​​(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.​​(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion.​​*(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. *​
Be sure to pay especially close attention to the last paragraph in bold. Ain't that a daisy? Let's replay part of that again:

*None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's [individual-rights] interpretation. *​
The Court has never held it to be a mere collective right per the Militia.*

Also see: Supreme Court Gun-Ban Ruling Buries "Collective Rights" Theory - Competitive Enterprise Institute*


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2022)

westwall said:


> You failed.  You couldn't answer basic first year geology questions.  You are a cut and paste fraud.
> 
> Now, piss off.




As are most of the anti-gun fanatics...


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

westwall said:


> You failed.  You couldn't answer basic first year geology questions.  You are a cut and paste fraud.
> 
> Now, piss off.



Says the little child who ran away from a simple challenge.  And then tried to LIE about it.

Pathetic.

(Why not be honest once?)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You really are stupid....



Yeah, it's "me".



2aguy said:


> Gun registration is only desired by fascists like you because you need it before you ban and confiscate guns.....we know this from actual human history......



Is that why cars are registered? 



2aguy said:


> Besides that...you can't explain how gun registration actually does anything against gun crime.



Why are cars registered?




2aguy said:


> ............Canada has registered guns, and their police it didn't help them solve even one crime.....



To be fair Canadians don't spend AS MUCH time killing their children as Americans do, so maybe they don't need as much oversite?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> As are most of the anti-gun fanatics...



Oh shut up!  We're talking about something you wouldn't understand.  It's unrelated to guns.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Says the little child who ran away from a simple challenge.  And then tried to LIE about it.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> (Why not be honest once?)





You FAILED the simple challenge.  You were so humiliated you changed your name.

How about you be honest for once.

Fraud.


----------



## Blues Man (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That's why I put a pool in.  So that I could defend my home.  I assume evil doers who wish to invade my home and harm my precious family will sneak in the back and drown in the pool.
> 
> Americans have a right to self defense....I just chose to do it with a MOAT.


That doesn't work on criminals who can swim


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

westwall said:


> You FAILED the simple challenge.  You were so humiliated you changed your name.
> 
> How about you be honest for once.
> 
> Fraud.



LOL.  Watching you crow about being a wuss and RUNNING AWAY FROM A SIMPLE CHALLENGE is fun!

Look, west, you and I both know what you are (troll) and what your game is.  You don't post any technical information, you don't do anything but troll.

It's fun, sure, but kind of boring.  It's kind of "losery" of you to be like this ALL the time.  Give it a rest, or take my challenge, either way I don't much care what you say.

You see, I've scraped stuff off my shoe that I respect more than I respect you.  So, go ahead, play your troll game.  But keep in mind I will ALWAYS know where to find the challenge you ran away from.

And from time to time I'll post it again so others can see you for the potemkin structure you are.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> That doesn't work on criminals who can swim



That's why I have the car...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Beto does, he said so himself.
> 
> ...


This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.

Guns aren’t going to be ‘banned’; guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated’ – the notion that they are is just another example of rightwing dishonesty and lies.


----------



## Blues Man (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That's why I have the car...


you can't run over a criminal that's already in your house or will you use the car to run away?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> you can't run over a criminal that's already in your house or will you use the car to run away?



Well, when I discuss gun crimes with gun advocates I'm always told how many people are killed by cars.  So I bought a car.

Now you're telling me I can't use my car to kill an intruder???

Why do you want my family to be victimized?????


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Repeal the second amendment shrugs
> Now how are you getting guns from the American subjects?


Wrong.

The OP is not advocating for repealing the Second Amendment.

Even if the Amendment were to be repealed – which no one supports – it doesn’t have anything to do with ‘taking’ guns from Americans.

Until 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not states and local jurisdictions.

During those 219 years no state or local jurisdiction sought to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.

This is yet another reason why good-faith debate concerning the Second Amendment is impossible with the right: the comprehensive ignorance of conservatives about the topic.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You DID NOT take my challenge.  If you did, then show me the post.
> 
> You aren't LYING here are you?  You wouldn't LIE would you???


He’s a conservative – so he would be lying.


----------



## Ringtone (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “…we agree with Justice Stevens that the Second Amendment, properly understood, is not a legal impediment to the kinds of reasonable gun regulations that form the mainstream of the U.S. gun debate — things like expanded background checks, prohibitions on unreasonably powerful weapons, and limits on possession by especially dangerous persons. In keeping with _Heller’s_ admonition (echoed in _McDonald_) that gun rights are not absolute, the number and percentage of successful legal challenges claiming a violation of the Second Amendment remains quite low. That low rate of success makes even more sense when one considers that stringent gun regulations are rare, leaving only the most reasonable and popular regulations open to challenge. This is not a target-rich environment for gun rights litigators.” _supra_
> 
> The question, of course, is that however reasonable a firearm regulation might be, how effective is that regulation; does it foment actual public safety, is the perception of public safety sufficient to justify that regulation.


Agree.

On the other hand, as I have noted elsewhere, it's damn odd that you and I seem to only agree on those points for which you can provide clear justification via case law.  I know the case law too.

It's when you deviate from the ontological and conceptual order of things, when you deviate from historical understanding and practice, when you deviate from the pertinent _decidendi_ of case law, indeed, when you tout the left's hackneyed and utterly debunked collective-rights theory, claiming that most opinion supposedly supports it, we don't get case law from you.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.
> 
> No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.
> 
> Guns aren’t going to be ‘banned’; guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated’ – the notion that they are is just another example of rightwing dishonesty and lies.



No one wants to take anyone's guns?






						beto o'rourke hell yes we're gonna take - Bing video
					






					www.bing.com


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> He’s a conservative – so he would be lying.



westwall is a troll.  It was funny when they tried to "challenge" me in geology.   They found the name of one random formation on the planet earth and then asked how much I knew about it.  There are thousands upon thousands of formations in the US alone (and some of them change names across state lines!) and this tool thought he was going to "own" me on the topic by finding a random formation.

It was pathetic to say the least and it showed that westwall doesn't know anything about geology.

Westwall never once said anything technical about the topic (they can't) and when I did they decided that their troll game would be claiming I just googled stuff.

It's sad when people are so shallow and vile.  I can see being snarky and brutal on a discussion forum from time to time but to just be a troll for the jollies is stupid.

Which is, of course, on-brand for westwall.

(Watch they'll come back on here claiming they destroyed me again...it's sad)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> No one wants to take anyone's guns?



People tend to get really heated when their nation watches multiple school slaughters and does nothing.  

Every modest proposal is shot down (pun intended), so obviously some people are going to get more aggressive about their rhetoric.

Which just scares the bejeezlies out of the gun worshippers who run out and buy more guns.  

In the end the folks who love their guns so much have to admit that people WILL GET PISSED OFF if their kids are dying just because they went to school.  At some point people will get SO PISSED you won't like the response.

Just a pro-tip.  Maybe something to help you develop a strategy for the conversation.

To preserve your hobby.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> He’s a conservative – so he would be lying.


Aren't you the one complaining about ''hasty generalization falllacies''?


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> westwall is a troll.  It was funny when they tried to "challenge" me in geology.   They found the name of one random formation on the planet earth and then asked how much I knew about it.  There are thousands upon thousands of formations in the US alone (and some of them change names across state lines!) and this tool thought he was going to "own" me on the topic by finding a random formation.
> 
> It was pathetic to say the least and it showed that westwall doesn't know anything about geology.
> 
> ...




No, what is funny is you whining that I wasn't using "sciency" terminology.  I purposely used non scientific language because then you couldn't simply Google it.

However,  if you were a true geologist you would instantly know the answers.

You failed.

You couldn't even tell a formation that I named was a formation.  Even though I DID use standard scientific language for that.

You clued me in that you were a fraud when you had to cut and paste the USGS page for the Yellowstone caldera.

In the time you were cutting and pasting, I described in detail in a PM to one of the other posters what was happening,  how it was happening,  and why there was no concern.

I also told her that you were cut and pasting the USGS website, WHILE YOU WERE DOING IT, which she confirmed for herself.

So yeah, you are a liar, and a fraud.

So piss off, loser.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> People tend to get really heated when their nation watches multiple school slaughters and does nothing.
> 
> Every modest proposal is shot down (pun intended), so obviously some people are going to get more aggressive about their rhetoric.
> 
> ...



Less than a week ago, a modest, proposed school safety bill was shot down by Chuck Schumer.









						Parkland dad devastated after Schumer blocks GOP school safety bill named after son: 'It's heartbreaking’
					

Max Schachter, whose son was killed in the 2018 Parkland school shooting, speaks out after Sen. Chuck Schumer blocked a school safety bill named after his son.




					news.yahoo.com
				




Leftists / Democrats are being obstructionist. I wonder why that is.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, what is funny is you whining that I wasn't using "sciency" terminology.  I purposely used non scientific language because then you couldn't simply Google it.
> 
> However,  if you were a true geologist you would instantly know the answers.
> 
> ...



See C_Clayton_Jones  ?  I told you they would come back on here and claim victory again.  Note there's no technical details or actual citations (he couldn't even point to the posts he's talking about).  He won't even talk about the details of how he destroyed me. 

It's pure trolling 101.

Pathetic.  I don't understand people who get off on being a douche.  But I guess it takes all kinds.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, what is funny is you whining that I wasn't using "sciency" terminology.  I purposely used non scientific language because then you couldn't simply Google it.
> 
> However,  if you were a true geologist you would instantly know the answers.
> 
> ...


If the Second Amendment were to be repealed it would return to the states the authority to regulate firearms as they see fit.

Indeed, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment safeguard the right of the states to form and regulate state militia.

Many state constitutions have provisions recognizing a right to bear arms.

So the notion that absent the Second Amendment citizens would have their guns ‘taken’ or that guns would be ‘banned’ is as ridiculous as it is wrong.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 29, 2022)

task0778 said:


> There are two ways to repeal an amendment. One way is for the proposed amendment to be passed by the House and the Senate with two-thirds majority votes. Then, the proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The second way to repeal an amendment is to have a Constitutional Convention. It would take two-thirds of state legislatures to call for this convention and the states would draft amendments, which would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
> 
> Considering the high threshold for making such a change to the Constitution, it's unlikely that the Second Amendment will be repealed.  As Concerned American said, "I think a snowball in hell has a better chance of survival.".
> 
> ...



  One thing to remember is that during the 1994 midterm elections, there was a very high correlation  between members of Congress having supported Clinton's fraudulent _“assault weapon”_ ban, and going on to lose their subsequent attempts to be reelected.  Even Clinton himself admitted that his ban was likely responsible for the slaughter that his party took during that election.  And that was just a temporary ban, on an arbitrarily-defined subset of arms.  All the bullshit polls that have been put out, from before that time, onward, purporting to show public support for such infringements on the people's right to bear arms notwithstanding, in the poll that really mattered, the people made it clear that they do not support such abuses of power after all; and many politicians lost their jobs over it.

  Now, you're talking about an effort to permanently alter the Constitution, to completely overturn the Second Amendment.  Do you think you're ever going to see a solid supermajority of politicians willing to sacrifice their careers to accomplish this?  You have to know that if they ever do ratify an Amendment to overturn the Second, or even make a serious effort to do so, that the vast majority of politicians who support it will lose their next elections, and never ever be able to be elected ever to another office ever again.  And in the mean time, they'll surely be replaced by politicians who will make haste to ratify another amendment to restore the Second.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Less than a week ago, a modest, proposed school safety bill was shot down by Chuck Schumer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hardening schools is what you guys have?  Pushing this disaster off on the SCHOOLS?  Yeah, you guys have your priorities a bit mixed up.

Deal with your guns.  Or watch your kids die.

I don't have kids, don't have guns so in reality it's YOUR problem.  YOU fix it.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> See C_Clayton_Jones  ?  I told you they would come back on here and claim victory again.  Note there's no technical details or actual citations (he couldn't even point to the posts he's talking about).  He won't even talk about the details of how he destroyed me.
> 
> It's pure trolling 101.
> 
> Pathetic.  I don't understand people who get off on being a douche.  But I guess it takes all kinds.





Says the asshat who changed his name in shame.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If the Second Amendment were to be repealed it would return to the states the authority to regulate firearms as they see fit.
> 
> Indeed, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment safeguard the right of the states to form and regulate state militia.
> 
> ...





No, it wasn't.   The original intent of the Founders was to preserve the ability to eliminate an illegitimate government. 

This is obvious when one reads the many letters between them that deal with the 2nd.

The militia is EVERYONE, that too is plain as day.

But only if you are honest.

Which you are not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The OP is not advocating for repealing the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


So the professional liar is chiming in and responded strangely. 
"Repeal the second amendment shrugs
Now how are you getting guns from the American subjects?" 
I say repeal the second amendment shrugs and ask a question and the idiot says wrong and gives a long drawn out irrelevant response that I only read the first two lines. 
How in the fuck is that wrong? If the second amendment is ever repealed what are you going to do with all the existing guns?


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Does laughing lessen the sting?

PV?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Hardening schools is what you guys have?  Pushing this disaster off on the SCHOOLS?  Yeah, you guys have your priorities a bit mixed up.
> 
> Deal with your guns.  Or watch your kids die.
> 
> I don't have kids, don't have guns so in reality it's YOUR problem.  YOU fix it.


Your earlier comment included terms such as ''modest proposals'' and ''doing something''. Both those initiatives were put forth by republicans and Schumer blocked them. So, it seems that leftists / democrats are the ''do nothing'' bunch.


----------



## task0778 (May 29, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Now, you're talking about an effort to permanently alter the Constitution, to completely overturn the Second Amendment. Do you think you're ever going to see a solid supermajority of politicians willing to sacrifice their careers to accomplish this.



No, I do not believe we will ever see a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, I was only detailing what the process is to do that.  It ain't going to happen.  There is said to be a bipartisan effort to pass some kind of gun control legislation, but I have serious doubts even that will ever happen.  IMHO, the extremes on both ends of the spectrum will never agree to any moderate position.  More than likely it's just lip service to appear to be doing something that will never happen.  (November is coming up fast.)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your earlier comment included terms such as ''modest proposals'' and ''doing something''. Both those initiatives were put forth by republicans and Schumer blocked them. So, it seems that leftists / democrats are the ''do nothing'' bunch.



Invariably you guys always want to do anything EXCEPT address the guns.  You are more than happy to see 3rd grade teachers have to go through gun training, rather than what experts say (reduce guns).  You would rather ensure that doors are locked.  You would rather have schools RE-DESIGNED to harden them (in the same country that ROUTINELY hates paying for public education).

And when you get done with turning schools and theaters into armed encampments you move on to "mental healthcare".  You cry crocodile tears over the sad state of mental healthcare in the country _but you probably all to a person voted to ensure that healthcare remain out of reach of most Americans_.  You use "mental health" as a way to distract people.

Otherwise you might be willing to pay a SURCHARGE on your gun and ammo purchases *to support access to mental healthcare*.

You guys have "solutions", but none of them ever CONSIDER that MAYBE you guys are part of the problem to begin with.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Invariably you guys always want to do anything EXCEPT address the guns.  You are more than happy to see 3rd grade teachers have to go through gun training, rather than what experts say (reduce guns).  You would rather ensure that doors are locked.  You would rather have schools RE-DESIGNED to harden them (in the same country that ROUTINELY hates paying for public education).
> 
> And when you get done with turning schools and theaters into armed encampments you move on to "mental healthcare".  You cry crocodile tears over the sad state of mental healthcare in the country _but you probably all to a person voted to ensure that healthcare remain out of reach of most Americans_.  You use "mental health" as a way to distract people.
> 
> ...




That's because we PROVABlY aren't.   Government is.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 29, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?
> 
> ...


It's the very start of the start to safer guns and safer gun culture. But results won't happen overnight and will take decades.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Invariably you guys always want to do anything EXCEPT address the guns.  You are more than happy to see 3rd grade teachers have to go through gun training, rather than what experts say (reduce guns).  You would rather ensure that doors are locked.  You would rather have schools RE-DESIGNED to harden them (in the same country that ROUTINELY hates paying for public education).
> 
> And when you get done with turning schools and theaters into armed encampments you move on to "mental healthcare".  You cry crocodile tears over the sad state of mental healthcare in the country _but you probably all to a person voted to ensure that healthcare remain out of reach of most Americans_.  You use "mental health" as a way to distract people.
> 
> ...


Obviously, you would prefer there be no second amendment but that's a problem because what other parts of the Constitution do you find objectionable?

Turning schools into "armed encampments" is a little frantic. There are much less extreme measures available but the leftist \ Democrat controlled senate has rejected the most recent proposal. 

It seems it is you crying crocodile tears over your inability to understand that mental health issues were an obvious factor in the Texas and Buffalo Supermarket shootings. Ignoring the facts doesn't make the facts go away. 

As knives are used in far more killings than firearms, would you propose an "assault knife" registration process? How about a surcharge on the set of steak knives I need to replace to address those who kill with knives?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 29, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> It's the very start of the start to *safer guns and safer gun culture*. But results won't happen overnight and will take decades.



  I thought I just heard an echo of that idiot Joycelyn Elders, from almost thirty years ago, calling for _“safer guns and safer bullets”_.


----------



## Ringtone (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The OP is not advocating for repealing the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


Again with this tripe!  I debunked this crap on the other thread.

There is indeed confusion among _some_ conservatives on this point, but it's precisely because the right to keep and bear arms is firstly a preexistent individual right per the imperatives of natural law—not one granted by the Constitution, by the several states or by Congress—that merely repealing the Second Amendment would _not_ axiomatically constitute the end of the right.

In other words, some conservatives also wrongfully believe the right is granted by the Constitution.  _Some conservatives._  Most conservatives understand that it's an inherent, preexistent right.

It's leftists, not conservatives, who mostly believe that simply repealing the Second would end the right, so shut the fuck up!

The Second Amendment was never meant to permit the several states to regulate firearms against the people as they bloody damn well pleased.  Sans due process in the case of criminality and before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the several states never had any legitimate right to deprive any one of the people to keep and bear the general arms of the militia. It was the historical practice and understanding that the Second always applied to the states as well insofar as the general arms of the militia are concerned.

Notwithstanding, in the latter part of the 20th Century, blue states and municipalities began to encroach on the right in ways that would never be tolerated by the people in most of the other states.

Technically, all that _McDonald v. City of Chicago _(2010) did was formally specify in case law what had been formally reiterated for all citizens in 1868 with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms—_as protected under the Second Amendment_, dummy, not as protected under the Fourteenth—is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment like every other constitutional right.  Hence, the right is enforceable against state and local governments via both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

In other words, the Court did not formally make this so in 2010.  Rather, it formally compelled those states that had imposed the mythical collective-rights theory against original intent to back the hell off!


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 29, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I thought I just heard an echo of that idiot Joycelyn Elders, from almost thirty years ago, calling for _“safer guns and safer bullets”_.


An empty head will hear echoes, so yes you did


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Obviously, you would prefer there be no second amendment



If you had caught me about 20 years ago I'd probably seriously disagree.  I grew up in a hunting family.  Had my first gun before I had a drivers license.  But any good tool that gets picked up and abused by overly enthusiastic people who don't know how serious the item is, it gets to the point where I think there's less and less reason to let a nation of crazy people have easy access to guns.



Hollie said:


> but that's a problem because what other parts of the Constitution do you find objectionable?



The Constitution has built-in options of repealing or amending itself.  Why do you think otherwise?



Hollie said:


> It seems it is you crying crocodile tears over your inability to understand that mental health issues were an obvious factor in the Texas and Buffalo Supermarket shootings. Ignoring the facts doesn't make the facts go away.



I know more about the costs of mental health issues when they strike a family than most.  So you might want to slow your roll on that one, Paco.



Hollie said:


> As knives are used in far more killings than firearms, would you propose an "assault knife" registration process? How about a surcharge on the set of steak knives I need to replace to address those who kill with knives?



Oh god, more "knives" talking points.

Let me know the next time there's a STRING of mass stabbings in schools that take out 20 little kids and do it so brutally and efficiently the POLICE are even scared of the guy.  And then when the stabbing is so bad that the parents can't identify the kid without DNA.

And make sure to alert me when it becomes a nearly weekly thing here in the US.

Just. Make. This. Stop.  YOU guys love your guns.  Tell us what will make your favorite hobby stop being the PREFERRED METHOD OF KILLING KIDS.

What will it be?

YOU made the problem, YOU fix the problem.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> If you had caught me about 20 years ago I'd probably seriously disagree.  I grew up in a hunting family.  Had my first gun before I had a drivers license.  But any good tool that gets picked up and abused by overly enthusiastic people who don't know how serious the item is, it gets to the point where I think there's less and less reason to let a nation of crazy people have easy access to guns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no way to tell if your claimed hunting background is true or not.  

There were obvious indications that the shooters in Texas and Buffalo were mental basketcases. Nothing was done. Nonsense claims about overly enthusiastic people serves no purpose. A nation of crazy people having access to guns is nonsensical and melodramatic. You may feel better about yourself but it furthers nothing productive.  

You making claims to have some special knowledge of mental health issues means what, coming from an anonymous poster on a message board?


"._.... when the stabbing is so bad that the parents can't identify the kid without DNA"_

Is there a way to write your earlier comment so that it contains coherent sentences?


----------



## Ringtone (May 29, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> He’s a conservative – so he would be lying.


----------



## Ringtone (May 29, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> One thing to remember is that during the 1994 midterm elections, there was a very high correlation  between members of Congress having supported Clinton's fraudulent _“assault weapon”_ ban, and going on to lose their subsequent attempts to be reelected.  Even Clinton himself admitted that his ban was likely responsible for the slaughter that his party took during that election.  And that was just a temporary ban, on an arbitrarily-defined subset of arms.  All the bullshit polls that have been put out, from before that time, onward, purporting to show public support for such infringements on the people's right to bear arms notwithstanding, in the poll that really mattered, the people made it clear that they do not support such abuses of power after all; and many politicians lost their jobs over it.
> 
> Now, you're talking about an effort to permanently alter the Constitution, to completely overturn the Second Amendment.  Do you think you're ever going to see a solid supermajority of politicians willing to sacrifice their careers to accomplish this?  You have to know that if they ever do ratify an Amendment to overturn the Second, or even make a serious effort to do so, that the vast majority of politicians who support it will lose their next elections, and never ever be able to be elected ever to another office ever again.  And in the mean time, they'll surely be replaced by politicians who will make haste to ratify another amendment to restore the Second.


Indeed.  And keep in mind, merely repealing the Second would not have the effect he believes.  For the effect he wants, an entirely new amendment would have to be passed that emphatically denied an individual right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 29, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Invariably you guys always want to do anything EXCEPT address the guns.  You are more than happy to see 3rd grade teachers have to go through gun training, rather than what experts say (reduce guns).  You would rather ensure that doors are locked.  You would rather have schools RE-DESIGNED to harden them (in the same country that ROUTINELY hates paying for public education).
> 
> And when you get done with turning schools and theaters into armed encampments you move on to "mental healthcare".  You cry crocodile tears over the sad state of mental healthcare in the country _but you probably all to a person voted to ensure that healthcare remain out of reach of most Americans_.  You use "mental health" as a way to distract people.
> 
> ...


Funny my daughter is using Medicaid to pay for her therapy and medication.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Funny my daughter is using Medicaid to pay for her therapy and medication.



And that's an easy task?  

It's good she's getting help.  So I guess Mental Healthcare in the USA is PERFECTLY FINE!  So I guess folks who want to defend their guns will have to *stop talking about mental illness as a problem to solve*.

So we are back to square one.  We can't blame it on mental illness (because your daughter has medicaid funded therapy).

What do we blame all the shootings on?  Is it "inherent evil"?   Are Americans just evil?


----------



## Man of Ethics (May 29, 2022)

Sadly too many people in USA do not value Human Life -- G-d's Creation.


----------



## flan327 (May 29, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> Pay up your insurance. Come get them.


Oh my gladiolus 

I am laughing out loud


----------



## flan327 (May 29, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sadly too many people in USA do not value Human Life -- G-d's Creation.


Example?

And the word is GOD


----------



## Bob Blaylock (May 29, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sadly too many people in USA do not value Human Life -- G-d's Creation.



  Abortion is the strongest proof of this.

  Thousands of innocents murdered in cold blood every day, over a million every year.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 29, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Abortion is the strongest proof of this.
> 
> Thousands of innocents murdered in cold blood every day, over a million every year.



The problem is, though that the politics of those who are most in support of guns is often the politics of the "pro-life".  And clearly there is a problem there.  These folks claim to care about the sanctity of life but you will seldom if ever find them voting to improve welfare coverage.  What they care about is the _idea_ of a life.  The "pre-born" are prefect vehicles.  They don't do bad things, they aren't difficulties, they don't talk back, they don't believe the wrong things...they are a blank slate that they can IMAGINE they care about deeply.

But once born these things become kids which are expensive and if you didn't want one why did you have one?  And then they get older and some of them fail to become Christians and then they start doing crime etc.  Best to just leave that lot alone.

And if 20 or so of the "post-born" get a super-late-term abortion (in the 3rd grade) then it's time to run out to the public square to "pray" (so that they might be seen) in hopes that no one will force them to "put up again thy sword into its scabbard"...but will, instead, quietly allow them to buy more guns.


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 30, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You can't be triggered without a Trump


Or his cult, stupid people, have that effect.


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 30, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Correct!
> 
> The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments entail rights that are inherent and, therefore, absolutely unbridgeable.  These rights preexist per the imperatives of natural law.  They cannot be granted, taken away, or transferred by the state.  Their natural expressions and exercises can only be illegitimately suppressed by the state.  There is no assertion whatsoever in the language of their enumeration that the ratification of the Constitution, let alone congressional decree, granted them.  In other words, the language of their enumeration, including that of the Fourth and Fifth in terms of their essence, assumes their prior existence.  The duly administered warrants of probable cause and the duly administered deprivations of due process per criminality do not violate them.
> 
> ...


"Natural law and inalienable rights"?

If they were "natural" law every country in the world would have them.
If "inalienable" rights endowed by god?
Who told you that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Or his cult, stupid people, have that effect.


Trump makes stupid people believe any lie the Dems throw out their. He's the trigger for the mentally challenged.


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 30, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Trump makes stupid people believe any lie the Dems throw out their. He's the trigger for the mentally challenged.


Really?
Who thought Mexico was paying for a wall?

It wasn't democrats.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> Who thought Mexico was paying for a wall?
> 
> It wasn't democrats.


Tariffs yes indeed


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 30, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Tariffs yes indeed


Really?

Didn't hear that at Trump's pity rallies.


Never heard "Mexican tariffs"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> 
> Didn't hear that at Trump's pity rallies.
> 
> ...


Tariffs was how the wall was being paid for. You never heard of it? Why were you bitching about them?


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 30, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Tariffs was how the wall was being paid for. You never heard of it? Why were you bitching about them?



Sure ................ for a week, another day, another lie in Trumplandia.

May 31 2019
Donald Trump has announced that he is placing a 5% tariff on all Mexican imports to pressure the country to do more to curb immigration into the US, in a surprise move that has rattled markets.

The US president said the tariff would gradually increase “until the illegal immigration problem is remedied”. He made the announcement via Twitter after telling reporters earlier on Thursday he was planning “a major statement” that would be his “biggest” so far about the border.

June 7 2019
Donald Trump has announced that he is placing a 5% tariff on all Mexican imports to pressure the country to do more to curb immigration into the US, in a surprise move that has rattled markets.

The US president said the tariff would gradually increase “until the illegal immigration problem is remedied”. He made the announcement via Twitter after telling reporters earlier on Thursday he was planning “a major statement” that would be his “biggest” so far about the border.


----------



## Blues Man (May 30, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, when I discuss gun crimes with gun advocates I'm always told how many people are killed by cars.  So I bought a car.
> 
> Now you're telling me I can't use my car to kill an intruder???
> 
> Why do you want my family to be victimized?????


If you want to drive a car through your house go ahead I really don't care


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure ................ for a week, another day, another lie in Trumplandia.
> 
> May 31 2019
> Donald Trump has announced that he is placing a 5% tariff on all Mexican imports to pressure the country to do more to curb immigration into the US, in a surprise move that has rattled markets.
> ...


Blah blah blah you leftist Stalin loving Communist repeat the same old shit and becomes blah blah blah


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 30, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Blah blah blah you leftist Stalin loving Communist repeat the same old shit and becomes blah blah blah


Sure...............ignorant Trumptard.

Wasn't that what Trump's cult were repeating?
SAME old shit?


Then you ignore your communist loving dear leader.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 30, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> If you want to drive a car through your house go ahead I really don't care



(Can I just say that it's a joy to see someone who lacks even a smidge of a sense of humor?)


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure...............ignorant Trumptard.
> 
> Wasn't that what Trump's cult were repeating?
> SAME old shit?
> ...


Blah blah derp orange man blah blah Russia Russia Russia blah blah you TDSers are mentally deranged


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 30, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Blah blah derp orange man blah blah Russia Russia Russia blah blah you TDSers are mentally deranged


Sure Trumptard................NOT as mentally deranged as these fuck-nuts, by a long shot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure Trumptard................NOT as mentally deranged as these fuck-nuts, by a long shot.


You're mentally challenged because you believe the lies spewed democrat controlled media even after those lies were debunked


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?
> 
> This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?
> 
> ...


The 2nd Amendment should be repealed.  Over 1.5 million gun deaths took place in this nation just between 1968 and 2017, more than have died in all the wars since the Revolution.  As hunting for food disappeared the gun industry's reinvented itself into a weapon provider for a populace filled with fear of violent crime.  And the source of that fear was, of course, the gun industry.  The NRA took on this same tact and turned the 2nd Amendment into sacred text and has relentlessly argued that any restriction on gun ownership whatsover is a defacto violation of civil rights.

End it.  Cease being the paragon of violent lunacy.  Your fears are false, created by the NRA and the gun industry solely to sell you more guns.  Don't let them use you and the lives of your loved ones to line their fucking pockets.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> The 2nd Amendment should be repealed.  Over 1.5 million gun deaths took place in this nation just between 1968 and 2017, more than have died in all the wars since the Revolution.  As hunting for food disappeared the gun industry's reinvented itself into a weapon provider for a populace filled with fear of violent crime.  And the source of that fear was, of course, the gun industry.  The NRA took on this same tact and turned the 2nd Amendment into sacred text and has relentlessly argued that any restriction on gun ownership whatsover is a defacto violation of civil rights.
> 
> End it.  Cease being the paragon of violent lunacy.  Your fears are false, created by the NRA and the gun industry solely to sell you more guns.  Don't let them use you and the lives of your loved ones to line their fucking pockets.


NRA blah blah blah dumbass explain how you would take legally own firearms already in the hands of Americans? You do realize without a second amendment guns will still be there.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> The 2nd Amendment should be repealed.  Over 1.5 million gun deaths took place in this nation just between 1968 and 2017, more than have died in all the wars since the Revolution.  As hunting for food disappeared the gun industry's reinvented itself into a weapon provider for a populace filled with fear of violent crime.  And the source of that fear was, of course, the gun industry.  The NRA took on this same tact and turned the 2nd Amendment into sacred text and has relentlessly argued that any restriction on gun ownership whatsover is a defacto violation of civil rights.
> 
> End it.  Cease being the paragon of violent lunacy.  Your fears are false, created by the NRA and the gun industry solely to sell you more guns.  Don't let them use you and the lives of your loved ones to line their fucking pockets.


Wow. The stuff you learn from conspiracy theorists on the interwebs. I wasn't aware the NRA and gun lobby were responsible for out of control crime in so many Democrat run cities. Are the NRA and gun lobby responsible for Democrat policies to defund police, dump career criminals on the streets and the refusal of Democrat DA's and prosecutors to charge criminals for their crimes?


----------



## 2aguy (May 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> The 2nd Amendment should be repealed.  Over 1.5 million gun deaths took place in this nation just between 1968 and 2017, more than have died in all the wars since the Revolution.  As hunting for food disappeared the gun industry's reinvented itself into a weapon provider for a populace filled with fear of violent crime.  And the source of that fear was, of course, the gun industry.  The NRA took on this same tact and turned the 2nd Amendment into sacred text and has relentlessly argued that any restriction on gun ownership whatsover is a defacto violation of civil rights.
> 
> End it.  Cease being the paragon of violent lunacy.  Your fears are false, created by the NRA and the gun industry solely to sell you more guns.  Don't let them use you and the lives of your loved ones to line their fucking pockets.




Wrong....you include suicides because the average number of gun murders each year is 10,000......since 1939, 82 years, that would make the total about 820,000.....criminals murdering other criminals for the most part....

Meanwhile, in Europe.....from 1936-1945, 6 years.....the German socialists murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children......who had their guns taken from them by their governments in the 1920s and early 1930s......

Meanwhile, you dumbass.....

Americans use their legal guns on average 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, stabbings, beatings, kidnappings, and, yes.....mass public shootings....

That number is from the Centers for Disease Control...and that number is likely even higher.

Guns save lives.....government commits mass murder.


----------



## 2aguy (May 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Wow. The stuff you learn from conspiracy theorists on the interwebs. I wasn't aware the NRA and gun lobby were responsible for out of control crime in so many Democrat run cities. Are the NRA and gun lobby responsible for Democrat policies to defund police, dump career criminals on the streets and the refusal of Democrat DA's and prosecutors to charge criminals for their crimes?




Thank you.......


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2022)

Define irony.

President Joe Biden on Monday lectured Americans about gun control after Hunter Biden admitted to firearm safety malpractice.









						Joe Lectures on Gun Control After Hunter Admitted to Firearm Malpractice
					

President Joe Biden on Monday lectured Americans about gun control after Hunter Biden admitted to firearm malpractice.




					www.breitbart.com
				







Something of the typical hypocrisy coming from the democrats and the dementia addled old coot pretending to be a president. 

Wait, what? ''firearm safety malpractice.'' Hunter Biden is a one-man crime syndicate who falsified a federal firearms purchase application. Its only his last name that prevents him from facing charges.


----------



## task0778 (May 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Something of the typical hypocrisy coming from the democrats and the dementia addled old coot pretending to be a president.



Nothing new there.


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're mentally challenged because you believe the lies spewed democrat controlled media even after those lies were debunked


Really? 
You're calling someone else "mentally challenged"?
"Debunked"?
By whom?
When did Mexico send that check?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> You're calling someone else "mentally challenged"?
> "Debunked"?
> By whom?
> When did Mexico send that check?


5 years of trump orange man conspiracy theories have been debunked fuck you deranged tards


----------



## Blues Man (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> (Can I just say that it's a joy to see someone who lacks even a smidge of a sense of humor?)


And what makes you think what you say is actually humorous?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, when I discuss gun crimes with gun advocates I'm always told how many people are killed by cars.  So I bought a car.
> 
> Now you're telling me I can't use my car to kill an intruder???
> 
> Why do you want my family to be victimized?????


No gun prohibitionist protest or calls for change when a repeat DWI offender keeps getting released, it just shows the hypocrisy of the gun prohibitionist position. This whole common sense gun laws thing makes no common sense. You keep demanding things that are already on the books. You do not want to put guns in schools to protect children. You just want gun confiscation.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You do not want to put guns in schools to protect children.



Can I just say how bizarre this sentence is?  Seriously how fucked up are some people that they actually think putting guns in SCHOOLS is how to solve this problem.

How sick is it that you honestly think that guns in the school _*sounds like a rational person speaking?*_




bigrebnc1775 said:


> You just want gun confiscation.



If the only option you leave me is gun confiscation then, yeah.  But for a minute think about how fucked up YOUR PROPOSAL IS.  Guns *IN A SCHOOL.*

I don't get how you folks think.  You clearly LOVE GUNS SO MUCH that you think they will solve all problems _even problems caused by guns_.

What the fuck is WRONG with you people?????

What kind of country do you want?  A country where schools are armed, hardened encampments????

That isn't a country most rational people would want to live in.

Think for a second.  Realize *you all sound like you are fucking insane psychopaths when you say stuff like that.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And what makes you think what you say is actually humorous?



I would expect sub-literate morons to laugh.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Can I just say how bizarre this sentence is?  Seriously how fucked up are some people that they actually think putting guns in SCHOOLS is how to solve this problem.
> 
> How sick is it that you honestly think that guns in the school _*sounds like a rational person speaking?*_
> 
> ...


Now this is the most dumbest of all responses I have read on the subject


----------



## task0778 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Seriously how fucked up are some people that they actually think putting guns in SCHOOLS is how to solve this problem.
> 
> How sick is it that you honestly think that guns in the school _*sounds like a rational person speaking?*_



Most mass shootings are in Gun Free Zones.  According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “gun free zones” (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than _98% of all mass shootings. _This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as “soft targets,” meaning unprotected and vulnerable.  Which is why the terrorists and the crazies go to those places to commit their atrocities because they know they can get the highest amount of casualties and deaths before somebody with a gun shoots them.

How fucked up are some people that they don't understand that?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Now this is the most dumbest of all responses I have read on the subject



I will take that as a compliment!  When a psychopath says my point is "the most dumbest" then I must have nailed it.

(BTW, love that "most dumbest"...makes you sound like the subliterate you are)


----------



## Smokin' OP (May 31, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Most mass shootings are in Gun Free Zones.  According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “gun free zones” (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than _98% of all mass shootings. _This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as “soft targets,” meaning unprotected and vulnerable.  Which is why the terrorists and the crazies go to those places to commit their atrocities because they know they can get the highest amount of casualties and deaths before somebody with a gun shoots them.
> 
> How fucked up are some people that they don't understand that?



MOST of anywhere people congregate are gun free zones.
Designated, not by the government but private owners.....to.........guess what..........lower their insurance rates.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I will take that as a compliment!  When a psychopath says my point is "the most dumbest" then I must have nailed it.
> 
> (BTW, love that "most dumbest"...makes you sound like the subliterate you are)


It's not a compliment. Dude you aren't that smart. Anyone who believes any new gun control works is ignorant and devoid of reality. Do you believe guns will magically vanish and school shootings will stop? It will take 30 plus years to see any change. But in the mean time children are at the mercy of Schumer and the democrats.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's not a compliment.



Too late!  I took it as one.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dude you aren't that smart.



Wanna bet?



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Anyone who believes any new gun control works is ignorant and devoid of reality.



And anyone who just watched a bunch of trained policemen fail to enter into a gunfight in a school and who still think  3rd grade teacher will do it BETTER is devoid of reality.

NOT EVERYONE HAS YOUR DELUSIONS OF GRANDURE in relation to guns.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Do you believe guns will magically vanish and school shootings will stop?



Well, the rest of the world would indicate that it will definitely HELP.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> It will take 30 plus years to see any change. But in the mean time children are at the mercy of Schumer and the democrats.



*THE CHILDREN ARE AT THE MERCY OF YOU GUN-NUTS.  YOU CAN'T CONTROL YOUR GUNS AND NUTJOBS GET AHOLD OF THEM AND KILL 20 KIDS IN UNDER AN HOUR WHILE POLICE STAND BY.

Don't make my country into your diseased fantasy land.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Most mass shootings are in Gun Free Zones.



You mean like the NRA Conference when Trump was speaking?  




task0778 said:


> According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “gun free zones” (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than _98% of all mass shootings._



Is that why the NRA didn't allow anyone to bring guns to Trump's talk at the NRA?  Is it why the COngress won't allow guns in the Chamber?  



task0778 said:


> This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as “soft targets,” meaning unprotected and vulnerable.



*WHY DO YOU WANT TO TURN AMERICA INTO A GUN BATTLE ZONE?*

I don't get your thinking.  You seem to WANT America to be a free-fire zone.  What a fucked up view of reality.  Go AWAY.



task0778 said:


> How fucked up are some people that they don't understand that?



When you loons try to push this idea that a 3rd grade teacher can be as effective at stopping a school shooter you really need to pray that Uvalde type scenarios don't happen again where the police didn't engage for an hour.

Tell me again how highly trained people who have "shootings" in their job descriptions are less effective than a 3rd grade teacher?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?  Were dropped on your head as child????


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Wanna bet?


You aren't that smart. Anyone who believes it's going to be ok to leave school's unprotected and believes the new and improved gun control is going work is a very ignorant person and devoid of any reality.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You mean like the NRA Conference when Trump was speaking?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ignorance above and beyond


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You aren't that smart.



You keep saying that.  But I'm not sure how YOU came to judge that.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Anyone who believes it's going to be ok to leave school's unprotected



The way it was back in the 1970's when I went to elementary school?  



bigrebnc1775 said:


> and believes the new and improved gun control is going work is a very ignorant person and devoid of any reality.



Have you ever MET a 3rd grade teacher?  

Why do you think the POlice in Uvalde were less brave than a 3rd grade teacher?  Do you not much like the police?  Not a "Blue LIves Matter" kind of guy?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ignorance above and beyond



HEY, if you think gunfree zones are bad...*the NRA says you are wrong.*

The NRA LOVES gunfree zones for their stuff.

Why am I ignorant if I'm not as stupid as you are?


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Can I just say how bizarre this sentence is?  Seriously how fucked up are some people that they actually think putting guns in SCHOOLS is how to solve this problem.
> 
> How sick is it that you honestly think that guns in the school _*sounds like a rational person speaking?*_
> 
> ...




Israel has armed guards in all of their schools...just ask the poster Surada.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> HEY, if you think gunfree zones are bad...*the NRA says you are wrong.*
> 
> The NRA LOVES gunfree zones for their stuff.
> 
> Why am I ignorant if I'm not as stupid as you are?




That is a lie...the only time guns weren't allowed at the NRA events was when Trump was there.....all the other events and time guns were allowed, you doofus...


----------



## Blues Man (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I would expect sub-literate morons to laugh.


Guess I'm not one of those


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Guess I'm not one of those



Don't worry, sweetie, no one expects you to follow along.


----------



## task0778 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You mean like the NRA Conference when Trump was speaking?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Listen up, you dumbfuck SOB:  there's a difference between a venue where armed security guards abound and entry is controlled with metal detectors and a school where any crazy dickhead with a gun can walk in and shoot a bunch of kids.  Right now, too many schools are soft targets where the kids are not as protected as well as they need to be.  Until those schools improve their security and employ more people with guns to shoot the bad guys before the kids are harmed, we're going to see more sad events like these.  

And only a fucking idiot waits until a weapons ban is passed to do anything about the situation.  And even if a ban was enacted, there are still millions of those weapons out there AND a nutjob can still use a different gun anyway.  I don't know about you, but if I had a 3rd-grader in school I'd want his teacher to have the opportunity to shoot somebody who is trying to shoot my kid.  Waiting for the cops to save the day is dumb as hell, too many kids could get shot and killed before they show up and take action.  Fuck that.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

2aguy said:


> That is a lie...the only time guns weren't allowed at the NRA events was when Trump was there.....all the other events and time guns were allowed, you doofus...



You should have done your homework.  Just two posts earlier I said this:



Cardinal Carminative said:


> You mean like the NRA Conference when Trump was speaking?
> 
> Is that why the NRA didn't allow anyone to bring guns to Trump's talk at the NRA?  Is it why the COngress won't allow guns in the Chamber?



But you are no stranger to talking out of your ass.  Maybe education would have HELPED you if you had been more capable of paying attention.


----------



## Blues Man (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Don't worry, sweetie, no one expects you to follow along.


Oh I get it now you think what you say is comedy because you think you're a comedian.  Just like the guy who says his crayon stick figure drawing is art because he calls himself an artist.


----------



## Blues Man (May 31, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Listen up, you dumbfuck SOB:  there's a difference between a venue where armed security guards abound and entry is controlled with metal detectors and a school where any crazy dickhead with a gun can walk in and shoot a bunch of kids.  Right now, too many schools are soft targets where the kids are not as protected as well as they need to be.  Until those schools improve their security and employ more people with guns to shoot the bad guys before the kids are harmed, we're going to see more sad events like these.
> 
> And only a fucking idiot waits until a weapons ban is passed to do anything about the situation.  And even if a ban was enacted, there are still millions of those weapons out there AND a nutjob can still use a different gun anyway.  I don't know about you, but if I had a 3rd-grader in school I'd want his teacher to have the opportunity to shoot somebody who is trying to shoot my kid.  Waiting for the cops to save the day is dumb as hell, too many kids could get shot and killed before they show up and take action.  Fuck that.



Yeah and why can a person just walk into a school armed to the teeth?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Listen up, you dumbfuck SOB:  there's a difference between a venue where armed security guards abound and entry is controlled with metal detectors and a school where any crazy dickhead with a gun can walk in and shoot a bunch of kids.  Right now, too many schools are soft targets where the kids are not as protected as well as they need to be.  Until those schools improve their security and employ more people with guns to shoot the bad guys before the kids are harmed, we're going to see more sad events like these.



All I'm saying is if you want to arm teachers instead of leaving schools "soft targets" you are NOT doing what the NRA itself does when Trump speaks.

It's because the NRA leadership are NOT idiots like you guys.  They know guns are dangerous.

They are playing you for the "soft targets" your simple brains are.



task0778 said:


> And only a fucking idiot waits until a weapons ban is passed to do anything about the situation.  And even if a ban was enacted, there are still millions of those weapons out there AND a nutjob can still use a different gun anyway.  I don't know about you, but if I had a 3rd-grader in school I'd want his teacher to have the opportunity to shoot somebody who is trying to shoot my kid.  Waiting for the cops to save the day is dumb as hell, too many kids could get shot and killed before they show up and take action.  Fuck that.



Why do you want to turn America into a free-fire zone?  Is it because you are fantasizing you will be some super-duper hero somewhere?  Newsflash:  you won't.  Statistically you and your kind are more likely to make a situation worse.

Meanwhile your stupid hobby has turned America into a shithole filling up fast with the blood of children.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Oh I get it now you think what you say is comedy because you think you're a comedian.  Just like the guy who says his crayon stick figure drawing is art because he calls himself an artist.



PLEASE try to stay on topic here.  I don't have time to nurse your simpleton ego.

Sorry.


----------



## Blues Man (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> PLEASE try to stay on topic here.  I don't have time to nurse your simpleton ego.
> 
> Sorry.


You're still not funny.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You keep saying that.  But I'm not sure how YOU came to judge that.


I keep saying but because it's true. You aren't even smart enough to understand when I gave the reason why you aren't smart read the bold


bigrebnc1775 said:


> You aren't that smart. *Anyone who believes it's going to be ok to leave school's unprotected and believes the new and improved gun control is going work is a very ignorant person and devoid of any reality*.


----------



## task0778 (May 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Yeah and why can a person just walk into a school armed to the teeth?



Inadequate security measures.

The better question is why would he if he knows the school has armed guards and teachers that will shoot his ass as soon as he opens fire and maybe even before that.  These guys want as many casualties and deaths as possible, and they'll go to GFZs because they know they can shoot a bunch of people before the cops show up.  IOW, nobody is shooting back at them for several minutes.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> PLEASE try to stay on topic here.  I don't have time to nurse your simpleton ego.
> 
> Sorry.


Ignorance is bliss SMH


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ignorance is bliss SMH



Stay on topic, please.  Guns.  Dead kids.  You know, the stuff you don't like thinking about that your hobby brings us.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 31, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?


That people even discuss the idea means the 2A is working as intended.
So...   No.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 31, 2022)

Crick said:


> The 2nd Amendment should be repealed.


The fact you want to repeal it means it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Stay on topic, please.  Guns.  Dead kids.  You know, the stuff you don't like thinking about that your hobby brings us.


Why? You dodge from what's explained to you.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why? You dodge from what's explained to you.



I normally don't listen to deluded morons.  Sorry.  Could you repeat your "critique"?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I normally don't listen to deluded morons.  Sorry.  Could you repeat your "critique"?


Post 241 dodge boy


----------



## Blues Man (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Stay on topic, please.  Guns.  Dead kids.  You know, the stuff you don't like thinking about that your hobby brings us.


My hobby does not cause people to murder children.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 31, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Again. I’m content to take the chance. The notion of unintended consequences is exactly the risk both sides would have to confront. I’d sign a petition today to get my new home state to agree to a Convention of the States.
> 
> You might rue the day. I don’t care. I’m aware of the risks. That’s why I said that the libs and progs MIGHT not like the outcome. I didn’t guarantee it. I certainly never suggested that I would like it, either. A risk is a risk. In this case, I think it’s urgent to take the risk.
> 
> Mark Levin has called for a Convention of the States. A movement is underway. It might not come to fruition. But I’m hoping it does. 19 of the required 34 states have already approved it.


Mark Levin?  Certifiable whacko. 

Risks carry rewards and negative consequences.  More than you think


----------



## BackAgain (May 31, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Mark Levin?  Certifiable whacko.
> 
> Risks carry rewards and negative consequences.  More than you think


Mark Levin is a brilliant lawyer and scholar and only a dipshit with your sub-imbecile level IQ would deny it. You’re a verifiable asshole. 

And I already pointed out that risks have occasional unintended consequences. I’m more aware of that than a jerkoff like you could ever be. That doesn’t change a thing. 

Sometimes the risk is worthwhile if the perceived problem or danger is big enough. Retarded supplicating pussies like you will never grasp that fact.


----------



## Flash (May 31, 2022)




----------



## BackAgain (May 31, 2022)

Flash said:


> View attachment 652375


One might almost conclude that some people who would intentionally Use a gun against other people without any legal justification are the kind of people who would also violate a law about their possession _of_ the gun. 

Wait. This could be groundbreaking insight. Is it possible that murderers are comfortable with breaking other laws?  Oh my!


----------



## Flash (May 31, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> One might almost conclude that some people who would intentionally Use a gun against other people without any legal justification are the kind of people who would also violate a law about their possession _of_ the gun.
> 
> Wait. This could be groundbreaking insight. Is it possible that murderers are comfortable with breaking other laws?  Oh my!


Absolutely!  (as posted above)


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> All I'm saying is if you want to arm teachers instead of leaving schools "soft targets" you are NOT doing what the NRA itself does when Trump speaks.
> 
> It's because the NRA leadership are NOT idiots like you guys.  They know guns are dangerous.
> 
> ...




Shithead......the NRA has no say over what the Secret Service demands when the President visits the location...you lying asshat.....

Arming some teachers and support staff would keep it from being a target for a mass public shooter dumb ass...but then you wouldn't get your Christmas day, now would you....?  Dead kids are your primary tool for fooling uninformed Americans and stampeding them to give you power...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Shithead......the NRA has no say over what the Secret Service demands when the President visits the location...you lying asshat.....
> 
> Arming some teachers and support staff would keep it from being a target for a mass public shooter dumb ass...but then you wouldn't get your Christmas day, now would you....?  Dead kids are your primary tool for fooling uninformed Americans and stampeding them to give you power...


They want president Trump unprotected they hate him that much, or fear him enough to assassinate him.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Shithead......the NRA has no say over what the Secret Service demands when the President visits the location...you lying asshat.....



So now it's the US GOVERNMENT that fears guns????

WOw.



2aguy said:


> Arming some teachers and support staff would keep it from being a target for a mass public shooter dumb ass



So the guy who thinks that 3rd grade teachers will probably fare *less well  than trained armed policemen and women* is the "dumbass" here?  

Sorry but that simply doesn't make sense.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> They want president Trump unprotected they hate him that much, or fear him enough to assassinate him.



Not at all!  We  expect you good guys with your guns to defend him.  You know....*like you defend little kids in schools.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> My hobby does not cause people to murder children.



It gives them every tool to do the job efficiently.  Which is why 99.99999% of them use YOUR FAVORITE TOOL.

In fact many of them COLLECT these things..._just like you do!_  They know what they're for (just like you do).


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It gives them every tool to do the job efficiently.  Which is why 99.99999% of them use YOUR FAVORITE TOOL.
> 
> In fact many of them COLLECT these things..._just like you do!_  They know what they're for (just like you do).


No it doesn't.

I never gave a gun to anyone.

And I do not collect guns.  In fact I haven't bought a gun in years.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> So now it's the US GOVERNMENT that fears guns????
> 
> WOw.
> 
> ...




Explain how you think normal people can't defend themselves...

Same situation...mass public shooter armed with an AR-15 firing into a crowd.......

A woman....not the police....not a Navy SEAL...not SWAT....using her concealed carry pistol shoots and kills the attacker...saving lives...

Now, dumb fuck....explain why it is that college educated professionals, with training, can't keep a killer from murdering children under their care.....

*People like this West Virginia woman who stopped what could have become a mass shooting just a day after Uvalde.*


> *Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.*
> *Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday near the Vista View Apartment complex. No injuries were reported from those at the party.
> Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.
> “Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.*
> *Officers did not go into detail, but said Butler did have an extensive criminal history.*


*Now, doesn’t that sound like an attempted mass shooting to you?
But it wasn’t.
It wasn’t because the woman was there, had a gun, and had the will to use it at that crucial moment. Hazelett noted the woman won’t be facing any charges, which she shouldn’t.*

West Virginia armed citizen stops potential mass shooting
=======


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Explain how you think normal people can't defend themselves...



Not that they _can't_ but that most of them won't.  I know you hate data but studies continue to show that your precious hobby is statistically more likely to be used against your family or loved ones than it is to stop a crime.

I wish it were otherwise but apparently gun ownership leads to more bad outcomes than good.



2aguy said:


> A woman....not the police....not a Navy SEAL...not SWAT....using her concealed carry pistol shoots and kills the attacker...saving lives...



Anecdotal data is wonderful, isn't it?  Too bad it doesn't give an accurate picture of the overall effect.



2aguy said:


> Now, dumb fuck



Do try to be civil.  If you like guns I would hope you would be better at controlling your emotions.  You seem a bit on-edge to be a good gun owner.  



2aguy said:


> ....explain why it is that college educated professionals, with training, can't keep a killer from murdering children under their care.....



For the same reason that no one asks YOU to do differential calculus.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> I never gave a gun to anyone.



Is that how theft works?  SOmeone comes up to you and says "I would like to steal your gun!" and you comply?  



Blues Man said:


> And I do not collect guns.  In fact I haven't bought a gun in years.



Good for you.  I'm super proud of you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Not at all!  We  expect you good guys with your guns to defend him.  You know....*like you defend little kids in schools.*


Talk to Schumer he refuses to protect them


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Talk to Schumer he refuses to protect them



Remind me, wasn't there a School Resource Officer at Uvalde?

That's YOUR solution.  Did it work well?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Not that they _can't_ but that most of them won't.  I know you hate data but studies continue to show that your precious hobby is statistically more likely to be used against your family or loved ones than it is to stop a crime.
> 
> I wish it were otherwise but apparently gun ownership leads to more bad outcomes than good.
> 
> ...



The studies by known, rabid anti-gunner david hemmenway.......who has been an anti-gun fanatic for decades....

Meanwhile, I gave you 18 studies...done over a period of decades, by other anti-gun fanatics......both private and government, trained researchers....

You have one anti-gun fanatic study......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Remind me, wasn't there a School Resource Officer at Uvalde?
> 
> That's YOUR solution.  Did it work well?




No...there wasn't.  You dumb ass...

*There was no school resource officer on site or available at the time, he said.*









						Uvalde mass shooter was not confronted by police before he entered the school, Texas official says
					

The 18-year-old suspect who killed 21 people at a school in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday was not confronted by police before he entered the school, a Texas law enforcement official said, contradicting earlier comments from leaders and raising further questions about the police response to the massacre.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Remind me, wasn't there a School Resource Officer at Uvalde?
> 
> That's YOUR solution.  Did it work well?


Your solution has never worked. And no resource officer


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The studies by known, rabid anti-gunner david hemmenway.......who has been an anti-gun fanatic for decades....



I understand that anyone who disagrees with you is the scum of the earth and biased and can't possibly know they are so wrong.   It is your cross to bear being the only truly smart person on earth.



2aguy said:


> You have one anti-gun fanatic study......



Nope, several actually.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Your solution has never worked. And no resource officer



Was there one he just wasn't on duty that day or not available at that time?

Certainly the SRO in Parkland was there but sat outside during the festivities (LINK).

Can you tell me why you think a 3rd grade teacher is a better defender than *trained armed police officers?*  I'm genuinely curious.  The police in Uvalde showed us what happens when highly trained people with guns come in to save the day.  Now I'm curious why you think a 3rd grade teacher would do BETTER.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...there wasn't.  You dumb ass...
> 
> *There was no school resource officer on site or available at the time, he said.*
> 
> ...



Why wasn't he there?  Isn't there one on staff?

Either way, once the shooter got in the school _*even highly trained police professionals didn't do anything to stop the carnage*_.

I love how your fantasies always seem to SOUND so exciting and play out just like a movie....but reality is never as brilliant as that and we've still got 20 dead little kids.

It's almost as if you are proposing FANTASIES to protect kids as opposed to actual solutions.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Was there one he just wasn't on duty that day or not available at that time?
> 
> Certainly the SRO in Parkland was there but sat outside during the festivities (LINK).
> 
> Can you tell me why you think a 3rd grade teacher is a better defender than *trained armed police officers?*  I'm genuinely curious.  The police in Uvalde showed us what happens when highly trained people with guns come in to save the day.  Now I'm curious why you think a 3rd grade teacher would do BETTER.


Stop grasping for a lifeline the shooter never interacted with anyone with a gun. Why hasn't your  solution worked?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stop grasping for a lifeline the shooter never interacted with anyone with a gun. Why hasn't your  solution worked?


Because it's not meant to.
Gun control loons push for gun laws they know will have no effect on gun violence to they can then use those failures and proof we need to to enact even -more- laws.
The goal, you see, is to create as many restrictions as possible on the right to keep and bear arms, so people stop exercising it.
No one wonders why they want that.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Is that how theft works?  SOmeone comes up to you and says "I would like to steal your gun!" and you comply?
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.  I'm super proud of you.



I have never had a gun stolen in 30 years.

And I'd like to see anyone try to get into my gun safe


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I have never had a gun stolen in 30 years.
> 
> And I'd like to see anyone try to get into my gun safe



Good for you!   The bunker is secure.

But hopefully you get my larger point.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stop grasping for a lifeline the shooter never interacted with anyone with a gun. Why hasn't your  solution worked?



My solution?  The one that has caused at least one or maybe two posters on here to fantasize about putting me in a concentration camp or gunning me down?  That solution?

I don't know.  We haven't tried it yet.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because it's not meant to.



Does it make you feel good to lie about someone's post?



M14 Shooter said:


> The goal, you see, is to create as many restrictions as possible on the right to keep and bear arms, so people stop exercising it.
> No one wonders why they want that.



Do you find that arguing against strawmen you build is the most effective?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> My solution?  The one that has caused at least one or maybe two posters on here to fantasize about putting me in a concentration camp or gunning me down?  That solution?
> 
> I don't know.  We haven't tried it yet.


Oh ok you're not just for gun control But confiscating the weapon that is protected by the second amendment and it's owner. 
Come and try it


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Oh ok you're not just for gun control But confiscating the weapon that is protected by the second amendment and it's owner.
> Come and try it



Pew pew!  "Hold it right there, pard'ner.  I got me a loaded 6 gun and I'm mighty good with the steel."

POW POW!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Pew pew!  "Hold it right there, pard'ner.  I got me a loaded 6 gun and I'm mighty good with the steel."
> 
> POW POW!


Shrugs bug try it


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Shrugs bug try it



I'm having far too much fun pestering you guys.  You sound so over-the-top it's funny.

I hope you actually get a chance to take a breather once in a while and relax a bit.  You seem pretty on-edge.  And given your apparent love of guns and your stated willingness to put a cap in someone's ass you sound like you could actually be a danger to others.  (I hope the authorities in your area are keeping an eye on you, though.  Not in a bad way).

I'm sorry to be doing this to you guys.  You just put out so much low hanging fruit.  

By all means enjoy your guns.  You've won.  America loves guns.  You love guns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I'm having far too much fun pestering you guys.  You sound so over-the-top it's funny.
> 
> I hope you actually get a chance to take a breather once in a while and relax a bit.  You seem pretty on-edge.  And given your apparent love of guns and your stated willingness to put a cap in someone's ass you sound like you could actually be a danger to others.  (I hope the authorities in your area are keeping an eye on you, though.  Not in a bad way).
> 
> ...


Some words on a computer screen don't mean a thing but if you feel the need to try and take  what doesn't belong to you. I can show you a calculated response.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Some words on a computer screen don't mean a thing but if you feel the need to try and take  what doesn't belong to you. I can show you a calculated response.



Don’t be so scared all the time


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I'm having far too much fun pestering you guys.  You sound so over-the-top it's funny.
> 
> I hope you actually get a chance to take a breather once in a while and relax a bit.  You seem pretty on-edge.  And given your apparent love of guns and your stated willingness to put a cap in someone's ass you sound like you could actually be a danger to others.  (I hope the authorities in your area are keeping an eye on you, though.  Not in a bad way).
> 
> ...


I think Americans feel a bit more secure with a Constitution and a 2nd Amendment which establishes rights and freedoms. When our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they understood fundamental, basic human rights; the right to self-defense and the right to limit the role of government. Having come from theocratic totalitarianism, the founders were aware of the dangers of overreaching government. The entire constitution defines rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. 

So yes, Americans have won. We have won our freedoms and protections from leftist totalitarians. Those freedoms and protections are a part of the Constitution. Your seething hatred for the Constitution causes you such angst. Deal with it.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Don’t be so scared all the time


Don't be so angry with people who you despise because they legally and responsibly own firearms. It seems your every waking moment is consumed by hate; hate for yourself and hate for those you can't impose your fears and prejudices upon.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 1, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Don’t be so scared all the time


😆 Now that's some funny shit.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Good for you!   The bunker is secure.
> 
> But hopefully you get my larger point.


You have no point other than to hold people who have nothing to do with murders or mass shootings responsible for crimes they didn't commit


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You have no point other than to hold people who have nothing to do with murders or mass shootings responsible for crimes they didn't commit



A swing and a miss!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 😆 Now that's some funny shit.



I can tell from your response I hit a nerve.  Sorry.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> A swing and a miss!


Nope a base hit right up the middle.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Don't be so angry with people who you despise because they legally and responsibly own firearms. It seems your every waking moment is consumed by hate; hate for yourself and hate for those you can't impose your fears and prejudices upon.



Nah, just hatred for the fact that my country is the only developed first world nation with nearly daily mass shootings.

There was even one in TULSA _*just yesterday*_*...at a hospital*.  So I guess there's ANOTHER place we will have to "harden" or put armed guards at because you guys love you some guns and hate civilzation.

You've ruined my country with your stupid hobby.  Thanks.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Nope a base hit right up the middle.



If that makes you feel better.  Yay you!  WIn! Win! Win!

Do you need a participation trophy as well?


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> If that makes you feel better.  Yay you!  WIn! Win! Win!
> 
> Do you need a participation trophy as well?


All you have been talking about is how to hamstring law abiding gun owners.

Gun registries
Ban concealed carry
Ban open carry

etc etc

because you think that these people are the ones responsible for gun crimes other people commit.


----------



## Jets (Jun 2, 2022)

Repealing the second amendment is a non starter.

Period/end of story…


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Nah, just hatred for the fact that my country is the only developed first world nation with nearly daily mass shootings.
> 
> There was even one in TULSA _*just yesterday*_*...at a hospital*.  So I guess there's ANOTHER place we will have to "harden" or put armed guards at because you guys love you some guns and hate civilzation.
> 
> You've ruined my country with your stupid hobby.  Thanks.


Rather selective outrage. The only 'near daily' mass shootings I'm aware of are in large, democrat run cities, Chicago and New York for obvious examples.  When leftist / democrat politicians refuse to charge, prosecute and jail criminals, criminals are emboldened. What you want is to strip away the rights of legal, responsible firearm owners. You're fine with eliminating parts of that pesky Constitution which get in the way of leftist / democrat authoritarianism. The leftist / democrat utopia of Marxist / Stalinist control is just a gun grab away, rght?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Rather selective outrage. The only 'near daily' mass shootings I'm aware of are in large, democrat run cities, Chicago and New York for obvious examples.



Of course.  



Hollie said:


> When leftist / democrat politicians refuse to charge, prosecute and jail criminals, criminals are emboldened.



America has the most prisoners of any nation on earth.  So that would seem to make your point meaningless.



Hollie said:


> What you want is to strip away the rights of legal, responsible firearm owners. You're fine with eliminating parts of that pesky Constitution which get in the way of leftist / democrat authoritarianism.



The Constitution can be amended.  Sorry to break it to you.  I know a lot of you guys dropped out of junior high school before you got to Civics.



Hollie said:


> The leftist / democrat utopia of Marxist / Stalinist control is just a gun grab away, rght?



I love how you guys catastrophise.  You live in ABJECT TERROR OF EVERYTHING.

Look around at the world.  Canada, Norway and Sweden and the UK and France....NONE OF THEM are "Marxist/Stalinist" dictatorship.  You guys are positively UNHINGED AND DELUSIONAL.

If you are scared all the time of everything, get a friend.  DON'T JUST LOAD THE COUNTRY UP WITH GUNS.

You are smelling the place up.

Buy a frickin' dog!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> All you have been talking about is how to hamstring law abiding gun owners.
> 
> Gun registries
> Ban concealed carry
> ...



May I remind you that the Uvalde shooter got his gun legally as I recall.

So, yeah, there are some "law abiding gun owners" who end up doing bad things.  

And, yeah, so many of you are unhinged, delusional and living in TERROR OF EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING we'd really like to keep tabs on your *deadly weapons*.

Thanks.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can see you're angry and emotive but leftist / socialist utopianism is not the answer.  

Refusing to impose consequences for criminal acts is the reason democrat run cities are crime ridden. You want criminals on the streets instead of jail. Society suffers because of that. The recent leftist / socialist experiment in the Portland ''summer of love" was a disaster. When leftists/ socialists decriminalize theft, you have the constant shoplifting that plagues San Francisco. 

Why would you presume that leaving criminals on the street with no consequences for criminal activity would be anything but a disaster?

I am looking around the world. I don't see Canada, Norway, Sweden and the UK founded on a model of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. Why are you hoping those nonsensical attempts at comparison ae in any way meaningful?

Why are typing in all caps? Struggling to make a coherent argument?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I can tell from your response I hit a nerve.  Sorry.


Not really


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I can see you're angry and emotive but leftist / socialist utopianism is not the answer.



Nope.  But I see YOU LOT are all shaking in your boots 24/7.  LIterally everything terrifies you so you need guns everywhere.



Hollie said:


> Refusing to impose consequences for criminal acts is the reason democrat run cities are crime ridden.



Maybe it's because you conservatives refuse to vote for improved welfare because you don't like "those" people?

And because paying more in taxes means you have less $$$$ for bullets.




Hollie said:


> You want criminals on the streets instead of jail.



I want unhinged fear-junkies who are armed to the teeth and so terrified and angry they wind up shooting people off the street as well.



Hollie said:


> Why would you presume that leaving criminals on the street with no consequences for criminal activity would be anything but a disaster?



America has more prisoners than any other country on earth.  What should we do next?  Who do we need to throw in prison now?



Hollie said:


> I am looking around the world. I don't see Canada, Norway, Sweden and the UK founded on a model of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.



Does that mean something?  You are really confused.



Hollie said:


> Why are you hoping those nonsensical attempts at comparison ae in any way meaningful?



Just showing you guys for the unhinged morons most of you appear to be.



Hollie said:


> Why are typing in all caps? Struggling to make a coherent argument?



To make a point because you guys can't seem to read real good.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Not really



OK.  Yeah.  Sure. 

(The weighted blanket is in the hall closet.)


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> OK.  Yeah.  Sure.
> 
> (The weighted blanket is in the hall closet.)


Again I have no emotions I calculate the end game. You on the other hand are an emotional wreck.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Nope.  But I see YOU LOT are all shaking in your boots 24/7.  LIterally everything terrifies you so you need guns everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see you're angry and emotive. You're making claims you can't support because desperation is taking hold. 

Who is refusing to vote for welfare? There are 11 million job vacancies. How much more welfare is needed? Provide a number.

Why do I need to pay more in taxes when you want greater welfare payments. Get a job. There are 11 million available. 

You already have too many unhinged fear junkies in democrat run cities shooting each other. How many more do you want?

You have this strange need to put criminals on the streets as opposed to in jail. Democrat run cities have lots of criminals on the streets and the results are disastrous. It's a bit like you got what you wanted. Congratulate yourselves for turning leftist / socialist run cities into havens for criminals. 

Who have you shown to be unhinged morons? Who suffers from the implementation of leftist/ socialist  / crime- friendly policies?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I see you're angry and emotive. You're making claims you can't support because desperation is taking hold.
> 
> Who is refusing to vote for welfare? There are 11 million job vacancies. How much more welfare is needed? Provide a number.
> 
> ...


Preach it 👍


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I see you're angry and emotive.



Not really.  But I see you are scared and terrified of everything.



Hollie said:


> You're making claims you can't support because desperation is taking hold.



Is that why you guys buy so many guns?



Hollie said:


> Who is refusing to vote for welfare? There are 11 million job vacancies. How much more welfare is needed? Provide a number.



You think it's all good now?  LOL.

Deluded.



Hollie said:


> Why do I need to pay more in taxes when you want greater welfare payments. Get a job. There are 11 million available.



That's a stupid oversimplification, but I get it.  That's all you have.  Guns and oversimplified views.

Simpleton thinking.  



Hollie said:


> You have this strange need to put criminals on the streets as opposed to in jail.



America has the most prisoners of any country on earth.  You lose.



Hollie said:


> Who have you shown to be unhinged morons?



You guys.  The guys who think *everything needs to have an armed guard *because you can't imagine a world without gunfights.



Hollie said:


> Who suffers from the implementation of leftist/ socialist  / crime- friendly policies?



LOL.  Delusional.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Preach it 👍



Just don't shoot it.

(If you can control your gun emissions).


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Again I have no emotions I calculate the end game.



No you don't.  You couldn't think strategically if your life depended on it.  Maybe at some point you could, but then you fell in love with guns and common sense and strategic thinking went out the window.





bigrebnc1775 said:


> You on the other hand are an emotional wreck.



I'm not the one living in abject terror of everything requiring I get guns to defend myself.

But you keep projecting, little man.  Pew!  Pew!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> No you don't.  You couldn't think strategically if your life depended on it.  Maybe at some point you could, but then you fell in love with guns and common sense and strategic thinking went out the window.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh irony coming from a Trump derangement syndrome suffer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Just don't shoot it.
> 
> (If you can control your gun emissions).


Only if forced


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jun 2, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Mark Levin is a brilliant lawyer and scholar and only a dipshit with your sub-imbecile level IQ would deny it. You’re a verifiable asshole.
> 
> And I already pointed out that risks have occasional unintended consequences. I’m more aware of that than a jerkoff like you could ever be. That doesn’t change a thing.
> 
> Sometimes the risk is worthwhile if the perceived problem or danger is big enough. Retarded supplicating pussies like you will never grasp that fact.


The “never Trump” guy who sold his soul to the devil? And a scholar? lol.  Where at. Trump University?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Oh irony coming from a Trump derangement syndrome suffer.



Such desperation!  You had to bring Trump into the conversation!  LOL.

Next post you should screech about CRT and BLM.  Cover all the bases.

Make sure to grab your gun and hold  it tight.  Rub  the barrel a little bit for good luck.  Rub-a-dub-dub


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Not really.  But I see you are scared and terrified of everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who is scared and terrified? That appears to be you. You spend your every waking moment in trembling fear of legal and responsible firearms owners who have no interest in your leftist / Marxist utopias. 

You obviously missed it but gun ownership has expanded exponentially ovr the last two years in the wake of leftist/ Marxist policies of defund the police, refusal to prosecute criminals and the general allowance for criminal activity. It doesn't occur to Leftist / Marxist utopians that people see their lives in danger from leftist / Marxist policies that pander to criminals and punish law abiding citizens. 

You keep stuttering and mumbling the same tired slogan about Americans in prison. Leftists / Marxists are addressing that by putting recidivist felons on the street, refusing to prosecute criminals and promoting criminal activity.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Such desperation!  You had to bring Trump into the conversation!  LOL.
> 
> Next post you should screech about CRT and BLM.  Cover all the bases.
> 
> Make sure to grab your gun and hold  it tight.  Rub  the barrel a little bit for good luck.  Rub-a-dub-dub


Says the trump deranged mind person.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Says the trump deranged mind person.



LOL.  Seriously.  What is your thing about Trump?  Does he have to come up in ALL conversations with you?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Who is scared and terrified?



The people that need guns all around them all the time.



Hollie said:


> That appears to be you. You spend your every waking moment in trembling fear of legal and responsible firearms owners who have no interest in your leftist / Marxist utopias.



Do you ever get tired of talking about Marxism while knowing nothing about it?



Hollie said:


> You obviously missed it but gun ownership has expanded exponentially ovr the last two years in the wake of leftist/ Marxist policies of defund the police, refusal to prosecute criminals and the general allowance for criminal activity.



Don't worry....we've all seen the increase in gun violence, especially after the Assault Weapons ban expired.








Hollie said:


> It doesn't occur to Leftist / Marxist utopians that people see their lives in danger from leftist / Marxist policies that pander to criminals and punish law abiding citizens.



LOL.  "Law abiding citizens"....like the Uvalde shooter who got his gun quite legally?  Those folks?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> LOL.  Seriously.  What is your thing about Trump?  Does he have to come up in ALL conversations with you?


Regradless you are mentally deficient with Trump derangement syndrome.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Regradless you are mentally deficient with Trump derangement syndrome.



The only thing I've said about Trump is that he is so scared of guns and the NRA are so scared of guns that they make sure to infringe the Second Amendment Rights of the attendees a the Uvlade Death Party in Texas recently.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 2, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Abortion is the strongest proof of this.
> 
> Thousands of innocents murdered in cold blood every day, over a million every year.


Abortions will always exist


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> The only thing I've said about Trump is that he is so scared of guns and the NRA are so scared of guns that they make sure to infringe the Second Amendment Rights of the attendees a the Uvlade Death Party in Texas recently.


Your response shows just how deranged you are. Guns are inanimate objects they can do nothing on their own.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> The only thing I've said about Trump is that he is so scared of guns and the NRA are so scared of guns that they make sure to infringe the Second Amendment Rights of the attendees a the Uvlade Death Party in Texas recently.


Get HELP 

PLEASE


----------



## flan327 (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Your response shows just how deranged you are. Guns are inanimate objects they can do nothing on their own.


No one knew that 

😹


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Get HELP
> 
> PLEASE



Should I buy a gun like you guys do whenever you get scared?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Your response shows just how deranged you are. Guns are inanimate objects they can do nothing on their own.



Talk to your buddies at the NRA.  They know that guns are dangerous.  That's why they didn't allow them when Trump was speaking at the NRA Rally Celebrating Uvalde.

If guns are good for kids and teachers should be armed to protect them I don't understand why they aren't also good when in a room full of good guys with guns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

flan327 said:


> No one knew that
> 
> 😹


His response was like a gun has a mind of it's own and capable of doing bad things.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

flan327 said:


> No one knew that
> 
> 😹



The NRA certainly didn't know it.  They didn't allow guns in the NRA convention when Trump was speaking.  Do you think it's because they are scared of guns?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> His response was like a gun has a mind of it's own and capable of doing bad things.



I was simply telling you what the NRA did.  Don't blame me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Talk to your buddies at the NRA.  They know that guns are dangerous.  That's why they didn't allow them when Trump was speaking at the NRA Rally Celebrating Uvalde.
> 
> If guns are good for kids and teachers should be armed to protect them I don't understand why they aren't also good when in a room full of good guys with guns.


Don't have to but do you hear voices in your head?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I was simply telling you what the NRA did.  Don't blame me.


Dude it's normal procedure to make sure all former presidents are protect.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dude it's normal procedure to make sure all former presidents are protect.



Why?  I mean you guys tell us that the only way to protect school kids is to arm teachers.  You literally will consider NOTHING ELSE.

So why wouldn't a room full of good NRA "Law abiding gun owners" not be the BEST PROTECTION the PResident could have?

SURELY you don't think there's any DANGER do you?  Why are you scared of guns??????


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> The people that need guns all around them all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There were 21 million firearm purchaser background checks in 2021. What political party was in control that year? It never occurs to leftists / Marxists that their crime promoting policies and the effect of defending police caused violent crimes to reach unprecedented levels. 

Do you have any clue as to what your leftist / Marxist policies are doing to Americans? Obviously you don't. Here's one example:








						Seattle police memo shows defunded force stopped investigating new adult sexual assaults this year
					

An internal memo from the Seattle Police Department said it stopped assigning new adult sexual assaults, as staffing issues forced investigators to prioritize the uptick in cases involving children and teenagers.




					www.foxnews.com
				




I am concerned but not surprised you are either wilfully ignorant or just the typical leftist / Marxist who is unconcerned with facts. The so-called "assault weapons ban" had a negligible affect on crime.









						Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
					

Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact...




					www.factcheck.org
				




Why don't you identify for us what an "assault weapon" is?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Why?  I mean you guys tell us that the only way to protect school kids is to arm teachers.  You literally will consider NOTHING ELSE.
> 
> So why wouldn't a room full of good NRA "Law abiding gun owners" not be the BEST PROTECTION the PResident could have?
> 
> SURELY you don't think there's any DANGER do you?  Why are you scared of guns??????


President Trump had armed security with him. What's your point again?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Should I buy a gun like you guys do whenever you get scared?


You didn't know guns are used for sport shooting?

You have this fetish about guns yet you don't know why they're purchased. 

It's remarkable how you rattle on with 100% certainty about matters for which you possess 0% facts.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You didn't know guns are used for sport shooting?



I do!  Do you think the guy at Uvalde was "sport shooting"?  



Hollie said:


> You have this fetish about guns yet you don't know why they're purchased.



LOL.  I just heard you guys go on and on and on and on about how you would defend against dictators and defending your homes and your loved ones.  Give me a break.  Now suddenly it's all about "sport shooting"????

LOL.



Hollie said:


> It's remarkable how you rattle on with 100% certainty about matters for which you possess 0% facts.



Don't worry.  When scary facts come at you make sure to shoot at them.  You can take them out before they get too close!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> President Trump had armed security with him. What's your point again?



That you guys don't really believe guns are that safe...even in the hands of "Law abiding gun owners"...or you think the NRA has a lot of potential nutjobs in its ranks.  

Either way it looks like you guys are being hypocritical.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That you guys don't really believe guns are that safe...even in the hands of "Law abiding gun owners"...or you think the NRA has a lot of potential nutjobs in its ranks.
> 
> Either way it looks like you guys are being hypocritical.


WTF are you talking about? It's a requirement made by the FEDERAL government.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I do!  Do you think the guy at Uvalde was "sport shooting"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As you're flailing your Pom Poms for an "assault weapons" ban, odd you can't identify what that is. This seems to typify the rabid left.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I do!  Do you think the guy at Uvalde was "sport shooting"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since you can't identify what an "assault weapon" is, grab your Pom Poms and tell me where an "assault weapon" display will be at a gun store. I've seen sections for rifles, handguns and shotguns but never a section for "assault weapons". 

It's odd that you're so befuddled. Flailing your Pom Poms hoping to ban a firearm I can't find at a gun store. Being befuddled is not a position I would encourage.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Should I buy a gun like you guys do whenever you get scared?


If I happen to find an " assault weapon" to buy, do I also need to buy special  "assault bullets"?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> If I happen to find an " assault weapon" to buy, do I also need to buy special  "assault bullets"?



I'm not the guy that thinks assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than most semi-autos.  So you're attempts at a point here aren't going to land.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Since you can't identify what an "assault weapon" is,



You're wrong there.  Like I said, that's not my point.  SInce I learned the limited difference between an AR-15 and a semi-auto hunting rifle I don't make that point about the uniqueness of the AR-15.  Sure there might be something that came from the M-16 in development with regards to muzzle velocity etc, but I don't know those specs off the top of my head.  I accepted it when you gun folks told me there wasn't anything special about the AR-15.

Why do you keep belaboring it as if I'm somehow in disagreement with you?



Hollie said:


> It's odd that you're so befuddled. Flailing your Pom Poms hoping to ban a firearm I can't find at a gun store. Being befuddled is not a position I would encourage.



It's weird that you keep arguing with me over a point *I NEVER MADE and that I don't find in any way compelling.  I'm more than happy for an AR-15 to be as dangerous as a regular semi-auto handgun.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WTF are you talking about? It's a requirement made by the FEDERAL government.



Why is that?  Is the government scared of good guys with guns?  Is the government taking your precious Second Amendment rights????

You better storm the Capitol!  Seriously dude.  They are trying to take your guns away....AT AN NRA CONVENTION!!

Have they no shame???

You guys should really stand up to bullies who want to take your guns like Donald Trump and the Secret Service.

They must really be scared you guys are unhinged psychopaths intent on murder!  They might not know that the "gun" isn't dangerous...it's the person.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You're wrong there.  Like I said, that's not my point.  SInce I learned the limited difference between an AR-15 and a semi-auto hunting rifle I don't make that point about the uniqueness of the AR-15.  Sure there might be something that came from the M-16 in development with regards to muzzle velocity etc, but I don't know those specs off the top of my head.  I accepted it when you gun folks told me there wasn't anything special about the AR-15.
> 
> Why do you keep belaboring it as if I'm somehow in disagreement with you?
> 
> ...


I see. The typical leftist weasel. An "assault weapon" is an AR-15. 

How is an AR-!5 more "assaulting" than any other rifle? 

I'm still hoping you can direct me to a gun store, anywhere, that has an "assault weapon" section.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Why is that?  Is the government scared of good guys with guns?  Is the government taking your precious Second Amendment rights????
> 
> You better storm the Capitol!  Seriously dude.  They are trying to take your guns away....AT AN NRA CONVENTION!!
> 
> ...



So then. After you manage to confiscate "assault weapons" and bring them back to the Reichstag, can we can expect Joe Biden's secret service to give theirs up? Everyone will be safe when "assault weapons" are confiscated, right?


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 3, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> May I remind you that the Uvalde shooter got his gun legally as I recall.
> 
> So, yeah, there are some "law abiding gun owners" who end up doing bad things.
> 
> ...


So what?

You are holding other gun owners responsible for the actions of a criminal.

The old mass murderer in waiting  defense isn't any more valid now than it ever was.

I could use your "logic" and claim that since men commit rape that all men are rapists in waiting and we should have sweeping regulations placed on all men


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So what?
> 
> You are holding other gun owners responsible for the actions of a criminal.



Well, I have to register my car and I"m repeatedly told by you guys that cars are vicious instruments of murder all the time, so why not a gun registry?


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 3, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, I have to register my car and I"m repeatedly told by you guys that cars are vicious instruments of murder all the time, so why not a gun registry?


No you don't

You only have to register a car if you want to drive on state roads.

And driving is not a right it is a privilege granted by the state and that privilege can be revoked at any time for almost any reason.


----------



## cnm (Jun 5, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Could we, should we, get rid of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Could we?  NO.  Not anytime soon anyway.
> 
> Should we?  NO.  I want the right to protect myself and my family in my own home.  I should also have the right to go hunting if I want to or go to a Rod and Gun Club and hang with friends or associates there.  And I should be able to carry a weapon in public to defend myself if necessary.


School kids are happy to die for your wants.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 5, 2022)

cnm said:


> School kids are happy to die for your wants.



Fuck you.  It's not about what I want, it's about my constitutional rights.  Which apparently dipshits like you couldn't care less about.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 6, 2022)

cnm said:


> School kids are happy to die for your wants.


Says he who can only present fallacious appeals to emotion.


----------

