# Repeal the 2nd Amendment



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).

These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

How will you confiscate *all* of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....


----------



## 1srelluc (Jun 13, 2022)




----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.



It was the NRA who pushed the Instant Background Check database in the 1990's that culminated in President Clinton signing the bill in 1998.

Gun Control is vanishing at the state level where 26 states and a few more coming are dropping the gun carry permit requirements.

2nd Amendment will be around for a long time to come.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

Yeah sure the mass shooting will stop...

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


how would doing that stop criminals from getting guns?...


----------



## Ralph Norton (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


"These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment"
Do tell.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.



There are some 400,000,000 privately owned firearms in this country. Who, exactly, are you sending to come get those?

The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed. The democrats will never have the votes needed to do it in either the House or the Senate. There's not a chance in Hell they get 38 States to ratify such an amendment.

The left needs to stop stupidly focusing on the one thing they want (a ban of all guns) and start coming up with real, viable compromises and solutions. At least they stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting those...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


The problem is that the above assertion is evidenced by...  well... nothing.  It is just thrown out there as though this is an established fact when gun control measures have virtually no real impact on overall homicide rates (the metric that actually matters).  

But go on and try.  Lets see how far you get trying to repeal the second considering you cant even get legislation through.  The NRA is nothing more than a bogyman for the left, the power is not in the NRA but the fact that the gun rights advocates they cater to actually vote.


----------



## BackAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Let’s have a convention of the states and see if we can get together on what changes are needed on questions about amendments to add or repeal. I wonder if you’d still be game for that?


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> How will you confiscate *all* of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....


That's a question I ask as well.  The Amendment that would remove the Second wouldn't automatically outlaw all guns, it would just remove the protection; the States or Federal Government would then have to pass specific laws from there.  That would take time, during which I'm sure the issue will be front and center against almost anything, and pivotal votes could be elected out if there was enough support.  I would imagine that most of the legislation would be done by the States; Massachusetts would probably close it down fairly quickly, but I think Oklahomans would be just fine.

Even with all of that, I sure would not envy the hapless DEA agent who would have to walk up to a door with MOLON LABE scratched into the woodwork, and ask nicely for them to hand over their entire collection.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> That's a question I ask as well.  The Amendment that would remove the Second wouldn't automatically outlaw all guns, it would just remove the protection; the States or Federal Government would then have to pass specific laws from there.  That would take time, during which I'm sure the issue will be front and center against almost anything, and pivotal votes could be elected out if there was enough support.  I would imagine that most of the legislation would be done by the States; Massachusetts would probably close it down fairly quickly, but I think Oklahomans would be just fine.
> 
> Even with all of that, I sure would not envy the hapless DEA agent who would have to walk up to a door with MOLON LABE scratched into the woodwork, and ask nicely for them to hand over their entire collection.


There would be bloodshed... we all know this but few will admit it...
if people think everyone will line up and hand over their guns peacefully they are crazy.... A minority stripping the 2nd amendment from the majority would mean an instant civil war....


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 13, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> The Amendment that would remove the Second wouldn't automatically outlaw all guns, it would just remove the protection; the States or Federal Government would then have to pass specific laws from there. That would take time...



An excellent observation.

Idiots on the left believe that repealing the 2nd Amendment means that guns will magically go away.

Nothing could be further from the truth...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> There would be bloodshed... we all know this but few will admit it...
> if people think everyone will line up and hand over their guns peacefully they are crazy.... A minority stripping the 2nd amendment from the majority would mean an instant civil war....



Hey, I'm in...


----------



## Esdraelon (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


....shall not be infringed


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> How will you confiscate *all* of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....


I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.


----------



## night_son (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.



How's about we repeal your American citizenship instead?


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.







Most of them have their own private collections and buy specialty firearms while deployed overseas and bring them back to the United States.

So I'll bet they'll refuse to carry out that order.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.


So you want the US military to use force on American citizens?....


----------



## Ralph Norton (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.


Sure, what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> How will you confiscate *all* of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....





Rambunctious said:


> How will you confiscate *all* of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed"---Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens re-wording of the 2nd Amendment.
This would repeal the original 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> So you want the US military to use force on American citizens?....


I didn’t say that. What I said is they could do it. I hope it doesn’t come to that.


----------



## Innocynioc (Jun 13, 2022)

I have no problem with anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed trying to accomplish that as long as they comply with the constitutional requirements for doing so.  I take comfort in the fact that I don't believe it is doable with the present American electorate.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I didn’t say that. What I said is they could do it. I hope it doesn’t come to that.


How will they take my gun if I said no you can't?.....


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I didn’t say that. What I said is they could do it. I hope it doesn’t come to that.


And how will they be able to take all guns?... wouldn't the criminals still have them?.... Key word criminal.....


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Short of a constitutional convention, you can't repeal the 2nd.  That is great.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


🖕


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Innocynioc said:


> I have no problem with anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed trying to accomplish that as long as they comply with the constitutional requirements for doing so.  I take comfort in the fact that I don't believe it is doable with the present American electorate.


They are decades away maybe centuries from ever having the majority support for doing that....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I didn’t say that. What I said is they could do it. I hope it doesn’t come to that.


25 states are constitutional carry game over.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Its amazing to me that people could support taking guns away when those very people support defunding cops and releasing criminals...
It doesn't make any sense....


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> And how will they be able to take all guns?... wouldn't the criminals still have them?.... Key word criminal.....


You’re talking about the United States Military. If they want your guns, they’ll take em. I don’t see what you are going to do about it.


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.



Maybe if Stevens were to run for Congress, he could hope to change something.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> You’re talking about the United States Military. If they want your guns, they’ll take em. I don’t see what you are going to do about it.


How will they take them?... will they bust down my door and shoot me?..... if you think they would or should than you support a very different kind of country than we currently live in.... you are talking about a tyrannical government like China or north Korea....


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 25 states are constitutional carry game over.


Not much of a reader are ya?


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> Not much of a reader are ya?


You are the one that supports our military taking our guns away... maybe you should read up on our rights....


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> There would be bloodshed... we all know this but few will admit it...
> if people think everyone will line up and hand over their guns peacefully they are crazy.... A minority stripping the 2nd amendment from the majority would mean an instant civil war....


It's interesting that you mention a civil war. I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War. The Southern slaveowners were absolutely against giving up their slaves. I guess they felt the same way you feel about giving up your guns.
Wonder why I thought of that?


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> How will they take them?... will they bust down my door and shoot me?..... if you think they would or should than you support a very different kind of country than we currently live in.... you are talking about a tyrannical government like China or north Korea....


Please show me where I support this. ALL I SAID WAS THE MILITARY COULD ACCOMPLISH IT. Nothing more.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> You are the one that supports our military taking our guns away... maybe you should read up on our rights....


Will you shut up. I never said that I support this.


----------



## Cougarbear (Jun 13, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> how would doing that stop criminals from getting guns?...


We should ask Justin Trudeau. He said his people are not allowed to defend themselves with a gun. These liberals are such idiotic people that have no common sense. Governments that have confiscated guns turn into tyranny.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

FA_Q2 said:


> The NRA is nothing more than a bogyman for the left


Yeah, they talk about the NRA like it is some supernatural being.  The NRA is PEOPLE, lots of them.  Me, and about 5 million others.  This is not counting the other 100 million or so gun owners that don't belong to the NRA.  The leftist gun grabbers can holler all they want about the NRA.  If the NRA disbanded tomorrow, there still would be people who own guns.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 🖕


(___0___)


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> Not much of a reader are ya?


The second amendment will not be repealed. 25 states are constitutional carry.


----------



## Cougarbear (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


That's a wonderful article? It's a sick article! The Bill of Rights are first of all handed to us as unalienable rights from our Creator, God. They aren't given by the President, Congress nor the Supreme Court. So, they cannot be taken away by them either. If they are, we are no better off than China or Russia. We will have no rights at all.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> lead up to the first Civil War.


There has only been one.  What are YOU trying to say.


Ms. Turquoise said:


> Wonder why I thought of that?


I don't know.  Ignorance?


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.


They sure could. Thank you. Well said.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> It's interesting that you mention a civil war. I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War. The Southern slaveowners were absolutely against giving up their slaves. I guess they felt the same way you feel about giving up your guns.
> Wonder why I thought of that?


What a stretch... holy cow man.... You have gone over the edge now.... LMAO... I've never owned a slave and a slave can't defend my home and my loved ones.... A slave can't shoot game to feed my family or protect from bears and wildlife intent on killing me....

If you dems are going to make any headway in gun control you first must stop calling for defunding cops and emptying prisons and removing bail....


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> Please show me where I support this. ALL I SAID WAS THE MILITARY COULD ACCOMPLISH IT. Nothing more.


They can't...it would be illegal so guess what?... you are wrong.... and even if they tried... do you know how many of our troops own guns and support the right to buy a gun?.... it would tear the military apart.... it would tear the nation apart....


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> They sure could. Thank you. Well said.


From that one sentence, these morons think I want the military to go house to house taking everyone’s guns. These trumpers are too stupid for words.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> They can't...it would be illegal so guess what?... you are wrong.... and even if they tried... do you know how many of our troops own guns and support the right to buy a gun?.... it would tear the military apart.... it would tear the nation apart....


You’re an idiot, but already knew that.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> They sure could. Thank you. Well said.


So you too support the US military busting in doors of law abiding citizens?... what kind of schooling have you been exposed to?.... who has taught you that would be legal and okay?....


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> From that one sentence, these morons think I want the military to go house to house taking everyone’s guns. These trumpers are too stupid for words.


Words mean things tard.... if you don't mean it don't say it...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Innocynioc said:


> I have no problem with anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed trying to accomplish that as long as they comply with the constitutional requirements for doing so.  I take comfort in the fact that I don't believe it is doable with the present American electorate.






Hellbilly said:


> You’re talking about the United States Military. If they want your guns, they’ll take em. I don’t see what you are going to do about it.



   Do you know what asymmetrical warfare is?
I'll give you a little time to look it up.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Words mean things tard.... if you don't mean it don't say it...


I didn’t, dumbass.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> They sure could. Thank you. Well said.



   Yet another who doesnt understand asymmetrical warfare.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Democrats scream for gun control and confiscation of some weapons but when you ask them how they would go about it they are dumbfounded... when you push them they go right to the US military forcibly taking them.... TYRANTS......


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I didn’t, dumbass.


And when you push harder they get mad and lie and call you names....


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Democrats scream for gun control and confiscation of some weapons but when you ask them how they would go about it they are dumbfounded... when you push them they go right to the US military forcibly taking them.... TYRANTS......


I have $1,000 that says you can’t provide a quote of me saying I want the military to take away everyone’s guns.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> And when you push harder they get mad and lie and call you names....


I don’t get mad. I get Frustrated because you can’t understand your own language.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I have $1,000 that says you can’t provide a quote of me saying I want the military to take away everyone’s guns.





Hellbilly said:


> I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.


I'll take that thousand in small bills please....


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> I'll take that thousand in small bills please....


It doesn’t say that is what I want, moron. It says they could do it. Jesus you’re stupid.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> It doesn’t say that is what I want, moron. It says they could do it. Jesus you’re stupid.


You owe me 1000 bucks sucker....


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> That's a wonderful article? It's a sick article! The Bill of Rights are first of all handed to us as unalienable rights from our Creator, God. They aren't given by the President, Congress nor the Supreme Court. So, they cannot be taken away by them either. If they are, we are no better off than China or Russia. We will have no rights at all





night_son said:


> How's about we repeal your American citizenship instead?


Sorry. My citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> You owe me 1000 bucks sucker....


Come take it.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Cougarbear said:


> That's a wonderful article? It's a sick article! The Bill of Rights are first of all handed to us as unalienable rights from our Creator, God. They aren't given by the President, Congress nor the Supreme Court. So, they cannot be taken away by them either. If they are, we are no better off than China or Russia. We will have no rights at all.


The Bill of Rights came from MEN. Flesh and blood human beings. The Bill of Rights did not come from God.
I doubt the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of Native Americans would have been allowed if the Bill of Rights had came from God.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> Will you shut up. I never said that I support this.


He is really stuck on that isn't he?


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> What a stretch... holy cow man.... You have gone over the edge now.... LMAO... I've never owned a slave and a slave can't defend my home and my loved ones.... A slave can't shoot game to feed my family or protect from bears and wildlife intent on killing me....
> 
> If you dems are going to make any headway in gun control you first must stop calling for defunding cops and emptying prisons and removing bail....


A pertinent point just crossed my mind with your post re: protection.  During the 80's and 90's, there were all kinds of feel good programs worldwide to rid the world of land mines.  That being said, I submit that if guns were confiscated, the prevalence of land mines would increase for the sake of protection.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Its amazing to me that people could support taking guns away when those very people support defunding cops and releasing criminals...
> It doesn't make any sense....








It does if they're criminals...

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> What a stretch... holy cow man.... You have gone over the edge now.... LMAO... I've never owned a slave and a slave can't defend my home and my loved ones.... A slave can't shoot game to feed my family or protect from bears and wildlife intent on killing me....
> 
> If you dems are going to make any headway in gun control you first must stop calling for defunding cops and emptying prisons and removing bail....


I was just making a comparison. Slavemasters were very firm in their beliefs, just like you are in yours.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> He is really stuck on that isn't he?


He sure is. Oh well. I’m done with him.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Democrats scream for gun control and confiscation of some weapons but when you ask them how they would go about it they are dumbfounded... when you push them they go right to the US military forcibly taking them.... TYRANTS......


You asked how the guns could be taken away from you, then when Hellbilly said the military could possibly take them, you wanted to argue.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> The Bill of Rights came from MEN.


Wrong.  The Bill of Rights is a *reaffirmation* that those ten "God given" rights were "inalienable" meaning they cannot be bought, sold, transferred or removed.  Go back to school and pay attention this time.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Sorry. My citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.







If the 2nd Amendment can be revoked then so can any other Amendment.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> My citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.


If you open the constitution to a convention of states, that is negotiable--as well as any other aspect of the constitution.  Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I was just making a comparison. Slavemasters were very firm in their beliefs, just like you are in yours.


The era and the time and conditions in the nation were so different from today that the comparison is laughable...
I'll give you this... Slave owners were all democrats and we know how stubborn dems can be....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> They sure could. Thank you. Well said.



  You do realize that only 10% of the military actually see combat right?
We have 1.4 million people in our military and only 10% fight. Now,get rid of a bunch of those since they'll refuse to shoot their family and friends and if they did what do you think their fellow military members would do?

   Now we get to Americans that own firearms.
About 40% of Americans own firearms thats thats around 132 million Americans
  Compare those numbers 132 million vs. 140'000. While a lot of Americans wont fight back just like a lot of US service men wouldnt shoot their friends and family the numbers dont lie.
   The US military would be vastly outnumbered.

Next you're going to tell me the military has jets and bombs!!!!!
   How are they going to use these weapons? You cant just bomb cities willy nilly that will turn everyone against you.
Perhaps you've heard of Vietnam or Afghanistan...In Vietnam they fought us to a standstill because the military wasnt supported back home in the US.
   Sure we could have won but it would of entalled bombing the living shit out of them which of course wouldnt have been very popular back in the US.
  So,how do you think the people in the US react if the military were to bomb our own citizens?

   You're obviously not a deep thinker....


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> You asked how the guns could be taken away from you, then when Hellbilly said the military could possibly take them, you wanted to argue.


I didn't argue... I was amazed to see another citizen think the military would be able to take away guns by force....
Who thinks like that?... oh you and he does....


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 657552
> 
> If the 2nd Amendment can be revoked then so can any other Amendment.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


If it was possible to revoke the 14th Amendment, rightwing MAGA folks would have already done it to stop Mexican  immigrants babies from being citizens. THINK.
Now, the 2nd Amendment is another story. ☺


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> You do realize that only 10% of the military actually see combat right?
> We have 1.4 million people in our military and only 10% fight. Now,get rid of a bunch of those since they'll refuse to shoot their family and friends and if they did what do you think their fellow military members would do?
> 
> Now we get to Americans that own firearms.
> ...


I know a lot of Marines and Navy personnel and I can't think of one of them that doesn't own multiple guns....


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> If it was possible to revoke the 14th Amendment, rightwing MAGA folks would have already done it to stop illegal immigrants babies from being citizens. THINK.
> Now, the 2nd Amendment is another story. ☺


There it is.... TRUMMMMMMMMMMMP! I knew it was coming....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Sorry. My citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.



  And the 2nd guarantees my right to own firearms.
What now skippy...

   The 2nd allows us to protect all the other rights.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> You asked how the guns could be taken away from you, then when Hellbilly said the military could possibly take them, you wanted to argue.



   Because his assertions were complete bulshit.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Wrong.  The Bill of Rights is a *reaffirmation* that those ten "God given" rights were "inalienable" meaning they cannot be bought, sold, transferred or removed.  Go back to school and pay attention this time.


Just because those MEN said the rights were "inalienable" doesn't mean they are.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> If it was possible to revoke the 14th Amendment


This is your OP.  You should research your subject matter before exhibiting your ignorance for the world to see.  If you open the constitution for the repeal of ANY amendment, they are all fair game for change or repeal.  Again, careful what you wish for.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> If it was possible to revoke the 14th Amendment, rightwing MAGA folks would have already done it to stop Mexican  immigrants babies from being citizens. THINK.
> Now, the 2nd Amendment is another story. ☺



  We had a board member that used to say THINK at the ends of his posts....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Just because those MEN said the rights were "inalienable" doesn't mean they are.



   You should take up arms....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> So you want the US military to use force on American citizens?....



They cant wait for that……Ashli Babbitt was just the start of they get power


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> If it was possible to revoke the 14th Amendment, rightwing MAGA folks would have already done it to stop Mexican  immigrants babies from being citizens. THINK.
> Now, the 2nd Amendment is another story. ☺








Oh  lookee! Trump!! MAGA!!!

Insurrectionists!!!!!

Lock them up and show trial them!!!!!!!

*****ROFLMAO*****


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Just because those MEN said the rights were "inalienable" doesn't mean they are.


LMAO.  By the same token, just because the 14th amendment was passed doesn't mean it can't be removed.  The difference is the first ten are considered "inalienable" where the other 17 are not.  However, they are all part of the same document, the Constitution of the United States.  It was also written by men but it is the basis of all laws that govern we citizens.  If you open it up, you are not likely to enjoy the results.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> This is your OP.  You should research your subject matter before exhibiting your ignorance for the world to see.  If you open the constitution for the repeal of ANY amendment, they are all fair game for change or repeal.  Again, careful what you wish for.


Yes, I should research my subject matter. The first 12 Constitutional amendments form the original part of the Constitution. (Affirmative Action for White males).


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Yes, I should research my subject matter. The first 12 Constitutional amendments form the original part of the Constitution. (Affirmative Action for White males).



   Ahhh...more truths come out.
  So are you black or some other ethnic group with an axe to grind?


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> LMAO.  By the same token, just because the 14th amendment was passed doesn't mean it can't be removed.  The difference is the first ten are considered "inalienable" where the other 17 are not.  However, they are all part of the same document, the Constitution of the United States.  It was also written by men but it is the basis of all laws that govern we citizens.  If you open it up, you are not likely to enjoy the results.


I say let's open it up. The first 12 amendments didn't cover enslaved Africans or Native Americans.
It needs to be re-written.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> LMAO.  By the same token, just because the 14th amendment was passed doesn't mean it can't be removed.  The difference is the first ten are considered "inalienable" where the other 17 are not.  However, they are all part of the same document, the Constitution of the United States.  It was also written by men but it is the basis of all laws that govern we citizens.  If you open it up, you are not likely to enjoy the results.


Supreme Court Justice Stevens wanted to "open it up" to repeal the 2nd Amendment. 
I agree with him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> They can't...it would be illegal so guess what?... you are wrong.... and even if they tried... do you know how many of our troops own guns and support the right to buy a gun?.... it would tear the military apart.... it would tear the nation apart....


They did a dry run during Katrina in New Orleans


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Yes, I should research my subject matter. The first 12 Constitutional amendments form the original part of the Constitution. (Affirmative Action for White males).


Wrong again, my dear.  The Bill of Rights comprises the first TEN amendments of the constitution.  You didn't listen very well in your 8th grade government class.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 657558
> 
> Oh  lookee! Trump!! MAGA!!!
> 
> ...


I think some of them have been locked up.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Supreme Court Justice Stevens wanted to "open it up" to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> I agree with him.


HaHaHa, sure open it up.  I can guarantee that you will not be pleased with the outcome.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Wrong again, my dear.  The Bill of Rights comprises the first TEN amendments of the constitution.  You didn't listen very well in your 8th grade government class.


No, I didn't listen well. Because I used to think all those documents covered me and my people (African-Americans). It wasn't until I was older that I learned "We hold these truths to become self-evident" didn't include me.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I say let's open it up. The first 12 amendments didn't cover enslaved Africans or Native Americans.
> It needs to be re-written.


The constitution is the reason that you have the rights that you enjoy.  Do you understand what the definition of "amendment" is?  I have done my best to give you an education but like the proverbial horse that is led to water, I can't make you drink.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> HaHaHa, sure open it up.  I can guarantee that you will not be pleased with the outcome.


We should get rid of the Electoral College while we're at it.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> No, I didn't listen well. Because I used to think all those documents covered me and my people (African-Americans). It wasn't until I was older that I learned "We hold these truths to become self-evident" didn't include me.


It is crystal clear now.  You are a racist that is defined by your bigotry.  Run along, your ulterior motives have been exposed.  You aren't concerned in the slightest with the second amendment, your motives are driven by racial hatred.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Actually not.

Absent the Second Amendment, states and local jurisdictions would be at liberty to regulate firearms as they see fit – and the great majority wouldn’t ‘ban’ AR 15s.

Likewise at the Federal level – the states control the Senate, not the people; there would never be enough votes in the Senate to enact a new AWB.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I say let's open it up. The first 12 amendments didn't cover enslaved Africans or Native Americans.
> It needs to be re-written.








Ain't no slavery and hasn't been any for 150 years...

Where in the first 12 Amendments does it specify that they don't cover Africans or Native Americans?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

In the original Constitution the rights of slaveowners were codified into the document. That was important for the southern slaveowning men who signed the document. 
So, when the northern abolitionist started talking about freeing their property, those slaveowners got upset. Eventually the Constitution was amended to free the slaves, allow them to have citizenship and to vote.
So---the Constitution can be amended. Even if it some folks don't like it. 
*Let's repeal the 2nd Amendment.*


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 657561
> 
> Ain't no slavery and hasn't been any for 150 years...
> 
> ...


Forgive me for not answering a *STUPID question.*


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Ya, no thanks.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Let's repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Once again, for those too slow to grasp.  You cannot just "repeal" an amendment.  If the document is opened, the entire document is subject to change or repeal--including the amendments that you hold dear.  SMFH.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> It is crystal clear now.  You are a racist that is defined by your bigotry.  Run along, your ulterior motives have been exposed.  You aren't concerned in the slightest with the second amendment, your motives are driven by racial hatred.


Is it hatred because I'm telling you the truth about US history? No. 
Was Justice Stevens a racist for wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment? No.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed"---Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens re-wording of the 2nd Amendment.
> This would repeal the original 2nd Amendment.


No, it wouldn’t ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment.

Justice Stevens was advocating for retaining the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it’s a collective – not individual – right to possess a firearm.

And because there was no need for private citizens to be armed to participate in ‘militia’ that no longer exist, prohibiting citizens from possessing certain firearms – military weapons in particular – would be Constitutional.

That’s why Scalia contrived the individual right in _Heller_, unconnected to militia service – to preempt government from prohibiting citizens from possessing handguns.

So, your argument should be that you want to see the Supreme Court overturn _Heller_ in favor of the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment – no need for its ‘repeal.’


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Forgive me for not answering a *STUPID question.*







In other words you can't and you're simply a troll who's been dunking his food in the cleaning bucket again...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> You’re talking about the United States Military. If they want your guns, they’ll take em. I don’t see what you are going to do about it.


Well first off the members of the United States military are also citizens of the United States. Secondly they will  have to take those guns from their brothers, fathers, sisters,moms and friends. Third off the US military is not good at fighting asymmetrical  wars.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Once again, for those too slow to grasp.  You cannot just "repeal" an amendment.  If the document is opened, the entire document is subject to change or repeal--including the amendments that you hold dear.  SMFH.


Not true. When the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were added it didn't change anything about the previous Amendments.
Stop trying to throw salt.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Forgive me for not answering a *STUPID question.*


Why?  You've posted up one of the least well-thought out, disingenuous threads today.  It begs for stupid questions to show the stupidity of your premise.  It is disingenuous in that your premise is just a cover to grieve what you perceive as racism in the US founding document.  In so doing, you have just exposed your own racist bigotry.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Well first off the members of the United States military are also citizens of the United States. Secondly they will  have to take those guns from their brothers, fathers, sisters,moms and friends. Third off the US military is not good at fighting asymmetrical  wars.


I never said it was a good idea. I never said i support it. All I'm saying is IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT, THEY COULD.
/end of line.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Why?  You've posted up one of the least well-thought out, disingenuous threads today.  It begs for stupid questions to show the stupidity of your premise.  It is disingenuous in that your premise is just a cover to grieve what you perceive as racism in the US founding document.  In so doing, you have just exposed your own racist bigotry.


No, I've exposed YOUR bigotry. And your fear. Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Not true. When the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were added it didn't change anything about the previous Amendments.
> Stop trying to throw salt.


This is getting old.  You are not talking about "amendments."  You are discussing the "REPEAL" of an amendment.  They are not the same thing, nor are the mechanisms that are in place for the accomplishment of either.  Quit trying to cover your own stupidity under the guise of racism.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I never said it was a good idea. I never said i support it. All I'm saying is IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT, THEY COULD.
> /end of line.


Hillbilly, I like your avatar.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> No, I've exposed YOUR bigotry. And your fear. Thank you for your cooperation.







The only thing you've exposed is your own bigotry and hate.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I never said it was a good idea. I never said i support it. All I'm saying is IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT, THEY COULD.
> /end of line.


They would have to find mine.  Then they would be in for a fight.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> No, I've exposed YOUR bigotry. And your fear. Thank you for your cooperation.


Run along racist troll.  Your motives are transparent as a freshly washed window.  Next time you want to race bait--do it under the Race/Racism forum.  It has nothing to do with the constitution or the SECOND AMENDMENT.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Just because those MEN said the rights were "inalienable" doesn't mean they are.


Our rights are inalienable but they’re not absolute – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

The same is true of the Second Amendment, it is not ‘unlimited’ – it’s not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 13, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> They would have to find mine.  Then they would be in for a fight.


Take it up with them. I'm done with this mess.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Our rights are inalienable but they’re not absolute – .......







Did you get that line from Ole' Joe when he was having diaper rash?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, it wouldn’t ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment.
> 
> Justice Stevens was advocating for retaining the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it’s a collective – not individual – right to possess a firearm.
> 
> ...


Thank you. Well said.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 13, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Is it hatred because I'm telling you the truth about US history? No.
> Was Justice Stevens a racist for wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment? No.


No when you tried to add racism to a thread about "inalienable" rights to keep and bear arms it exposed your racism.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 13, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> You’re talking about the United States Military. If they want your guns, they’ll take em. I don’t see what you are going to do about it.


That is actually not true.

If this were a possible solution the military would have used it elsewhere.  If they could have cleaned out Afghanistan, for example, of all firearms they certainly would have done so with the decade of outright control we had there and the MUCH smaller population.  The reality is that removing something from the people at large is beyond the capability of any government agency at this point, our society is simply not structured in a manner that allows it.

A law like this relies on the fact that the vast majority of people are law abiding and will follow the law on their own.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jun 13, 2022)

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 657494
> 
> View attachment 657497
> 
> ...


Of course they wouldn't stop.  Do you have any idea what kind of gun control Mexico has?  They have daily slaughters.  When a mass grave is found in Mexico it contains hundreds of bodies.  If we are to any chance of countering that kind of carnage we keep our weapons at the ready.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jun 14, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Uninformed idiot.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 14, 2022)

Shawnee_b said:


> Uninformed idiot.


It takes one to know one.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 15, 2022)

I just saw a news video on CNN that stated the number 1 cause of death for children under 19 years old is GUNSHOT WOUNDS. In the USA.
Question: How can we call ourselves a first world country with these kinds of statistics?
Answer: We can't call ourselves a first world country anymore.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 15, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I just saw a news video on CNN that stated the number 1 cause of death for children under 19 years old is GUNSHOT WOUNDS. In the USA.


SUICIDE.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 15, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> SUICIDE.


Children 19 years old and younger are not usually suicide prone. The statistics said it's GUNSHOT WOUNDS. 
With all the school shootings we've had in recent years, I believe it.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 15, 2022)

Yesterday, June 14th 2022, was the one month anniversary of the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York at the Tops grocery store.
To honor them, here are the names and ages of the people who were murdered that day:
Roberta Drury, 32 
Magnus D. Morrison, 52
Andre Mackneil, 53
Aaron Salter, 55
Geraldine Talley, 62
Celestine Chaney, 65
Heyward Patterson, 67
Katherine Massey, 72
Pearl Young, 77
Ruth Whitfield, 86

These people were killed with an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon. These guns need to be banned. They are good for one thing only: To kill large numbers of human beings quickly and efficiently.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Our rights are inalienable but they’re not absolute – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.
> 
> The same is true of the Second Amendment, it is not ‘unlimited’ – it’s not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.



But it is an absolute ban on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I just saw a news video on CNN that stated the number 1 cause of death for children under 19 years old is GUNSHOT WOUNDS. In the USA.
> Question: How can we call ourselves a first world country with these kinds of statistics?
> Answer: We can't call ourselves a first world country anymore.



Totally wrong.
The main cause of juvenile is accidents, like falls, drowning, electrocution, etc.
They represent 60% of juvenile deaths.
Vehicles represent another 20%.
Guns are less then 15% of juvenile deaths.









						The Major Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States
					






					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Children 19 years old and younger are not usually suicide prone. The statistics said it's GUNSHOT WOUNDS.
> With all the school shootings we've had in recent years, I believe it.



Nonsense.
School shooting are an insignificant tiny number.
About 20,000 juveniles die each year, and school shootings are less than 100 per year.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Yesterday, June 14th 2022, was the one month anniversary of the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York at the Tops grocery store.
> To honor them, here are the names and ages of the people who were murdered that day:
> Roberta Drury, 32
> Magnus D. Morrison, 52
> ...



That is ignorant.
The AR-15 is about the weakest rifle made.
It is half way to a pistol bullet instead of a full rifle bullet.
It was deliberately selected by the military in order to kill fewer people, because wounded put more of the enemy resource out of action.
It is so weak that it is illegal to use to hunt deer in many states.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> It takes one to know one.


Wow, a second graders reply. Got anything else idiot?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 16, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> You’re talking about the United States Military. If they want your guns, they’ll take em. I don’t see what you are going to do about it.


One:  Most of the troops would refuse to follow such an illegal order.
Two:  Federal troops can't be used for domestic law enforcement.  It violates the Posse Comitatus Act.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 16, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> Please show me where I support this. ALL I SAID WAS THE MILITARY COULD ACCOMPLISH IT. Nothing more.


The military couldn't accomplish it.  They would have to go door to door and seize the guns by force in the face of gunfire from not only law-abiding citizens, but the criminals as well.  It would be like the SS invading the Warsaw Ghetto on a national scale.  Military casualties would amount to millions unless they just started bombing entire cities flat in a terror campaign aimed at the American people.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 16, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> If you open the constitution to a convention of states, that is negotiable--as well as any other aspect of the constitution.  Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.


Birthright citizenship would be the first thing removed.  And since there are far more conservative states than liberal ones there would be a lot of iron-clad guarantees of our rights installed and the powers of the Federal Government would be gutted.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> That is ignorant.
> The AR-15 is about the weakest rifle made.
> It is half way to a pistol bullet instead of a full rifle bullet.
> It was deliberately selected by the military in order to kill fewer people, because wounded put more of the enemy resource out of action.
> It is so weak that it is illegal to use to hunt deer in many states.


If AR-15s are so weak how do they tear a person's body apart to the point they can't be identified except by DNA?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> If AR-15s are so weak how do they tear a person's body apart to the point they can't be identified except by DNA?




Because.....the guy shot the dead kids over and over again because he had time to kill since the cops waited 90 minutes to confront him....you doofus....



Want to guess what those bodies would look like if they had been shot with a 12 gauge shotgun at close range?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> If AR-15s are so weak how do they tear a person's body apart to the point they can't be identified except by DNA?


It doesn't. Here is a photo of three .223 rounds in ballastic gel which is a analogue for human flesh.




You can see the narrow wound channels.  There is no massive deformation.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the original Constitution the rights of slaveowners were codified into the document. That was important for the southern slaveowning men who signed the document.
> So, when the northern abolitionist started talking about freeing their property, those slaveowners got upset. Eventually the Constitution was amended to free the slaves, allow them to have citizenship and to vote.
> So---the Constitution can be amended. Even if it some folks don't like it.
> *Let's repeal the 2nd Amendment.*


*Hook and Crook*

First you approved of turning loose savages on us, then you want to disarm us.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> It's interesting that you mention a civil war. I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War. The Southern slaveowners were absolutely against giving up their slaves. I guess they felt the same way you feel about giving up your guns.
> Wonder why I thought of that?


LOL so the 2nd amendment is like slavery? You prove how stupid you are with every post. How about answer the questions asked? Who confiscates the firearms and who takes them from criminals? I have a third qiestion... who stops them from being smuggled in to the Country?


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 16, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> It doesn't. Here is a photo of three .223 rounds in ballastic gel which is a analogue for human flesh.
> View attachment 658832
> You can see the narrow wound channels.  There is no massive deformation.


That isn't a bullet fired from an AR-15. That is a bullet fired from a pistol. A bullet fired from an AR-15 expands inside the body and creates a large hole as it exists the body.
I saw a video demonstration of this.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 16, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL so the 2nd amendment is like slavery? You prove how stupid you are with every post. How about answer the questions asked? Who confiscates the firearms and who takes them from criminals? I have a third qiestion... who stops them from being smuggled in to the Country?


You call me stupid, then you ask me questions?
If I'm stupid how can you trust my answers? Moron.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Why would mass shooting stop if the Second Amendment was repealed.

There are more guns than people in this nation and if confiscation was attempted a large number of firearms would not be turned in.

If there was a demand for firearms they would be smuggled into our nation so fast your head would spIn. If smugglers can smuggle tons of marijuana,  handguns and fully automatic rifles would be no problem at all. 

Plus the number of firearm caused murders would skyrocket as the criminals who would never turn in their firearms went wild invading homes and robbing people on the street.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> That isn't a bullet fired from an AR-15. That is a bullet fired from a pistol. A bullet fired from an AR-15 expands inside the body and creates a large hole as it exists the body.
> I saw a video demonstration of this.


AR-15 firing .223 rounds into gelatin.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jun 16, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> One:  Most of the troops would refuse to follow such an illegal order.
> Two:  Federal troops can't be used for domestic law enforcement.  It violates the Posse Comitatus Act.


Just declare martial law, like they would/could, and posse comitatus is suspended.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> That isn't a bullet fired from an AR-15. That is a bullet fired from a pistol. A bullet fired from an AR-15 expands inside the body and creates a large hole as it exists the body.
> I saw a video demonstration of this.


The gun is not what causes the round to expand.  Those properties are determined by the round itself and the materials it is constructed of.  An AR15 can take several different types of rounds and hollow points are available for any handgun out there.  The weapon determines the power of the round because it limits the size of the cartridge which limits the amount of powder that the round can be accelerated with.  There are MANY handguns out there that have WAY more power than an AR15.  Stating the round is fired from a 'pistol' is moronic as the term covers a variety of different powered rounds.  

This thread is illustrative of the vast majority of people demanding that the second be repealed.  They are almost always massively ignorant on weapons and how they operate.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 16, 2022)

Batcat said:


> AR-15 firing .223 rounds into gelatin.


That gel is NOT the same as a human body.
NEXT.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 16, 2022)

FA_Q2 said:


> The gun is not what causes the round to expand.  Those properties are determined by the round itself and the materials it is constructed of.  An AR15 can take several different types of rounds and hollow points are available for any handgun out there.  The weapon determines the power of the round because it limits the size of the cartridge which limits the amount of powder that the round can be accelerated with.  There are MANY handguns out there that have WAY more power than an AR15.  Stating the round is fired from a 'pistol' is moronic as the term covers a variety of different powered rounds.
> 
> This thread is illustrative of the vast majority of people demanding that the second be repealed.  They are almost always massively ignorant on weapons and how they operate.


I know guns kill people. And AR-15s kill lots of people real fast no matter what bullets they use.That's all I need to know.
Most mass shooters use AR-15 semi-automatic weapons.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


You think CRIMINALS care?

SMDH


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> That isn't a bullet fired from an AR-15. That is a bullet fired from a pistol. A bullet fired from an AR-15 expands inside the body and creates a large hole as it exists the body.
> I saw a video demonstration of this.



You have no idea what you are talking about…..


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I know guns kill people. And AR-15s kill lots of people real fast no matter what bullets they use.That's all I need to know.
> Most mass shooters use AR-15 semi-automatic weapons.


Except you do not know those things.  You cannot make any statement that is correct.





						Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories
					

Persons who committed public mass shootings in the U.S. over the last half century were commonly troubled by personal trauma before their shooting incidents, nearly always in a state of crisis at the time, and, in most cases, engaged in leaking their plans before opening fire. Most were insiders...




					nij.ojp.gov
				



"Notably, most individuals who engaged in mass shootings used handguns (77.2%), and 25.1% used assault rifles in the commission of their crimes."


----------



## Batcat (Jun 16, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> That gel is NOT the same as a human body.
> NEXT.


Of course gel isn’t the same as a human body but it is close enough to be uselful. 









						Everything You Need To Know About Ballistics Gel
					

Why is ammunition tested with ballistics gel? What IS that stuff anyway? How is it made? Read on to learn more...




					aliengearholsters.com
				




***snip***

_Again, it's not perfect. However, ballistics gelatin is a good testing medium for terminal performance of ammunition because it simulates the average density of tissue in a fleshy target. In the fullness of time, however, what's been found is that there's a correlation between performance in gelatin and performance in police and civilian-involved defensive shootings.

In other words, ammo that proves itself in the lab, using testing protocols for defensive ammo, TENDS to perform on the street. Likewise, hunting ammunition that performs in the lab tends to perform in the field. Until someone comes up with a better way to test and predict ammunition performance, it's pretty much the best thing we have_


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jun 17, 2022)

Batcat said:


> AR-15 firing .223 rounds into gelatin.


*Lone Star Crossing*

Check out what a .50 caliber bullet does.  It makes .223 look like a spitball.
It's the bullet that can bring down huge animals.

In 1875, Leander McNelly, with a dozen other Texas Rangers armed with .50 caliber Sharps buffalo rifles, went across the Rio Grande after 200 bandito cattle-thieves and forced them all to surrender.  The rifles were long-range, the stinking badges' _pistolas_ were not.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> That isn't a bullet fired from an AR-15. That is a bullet fired from a pistol. A bullet fired from an AR-15 expands inside the body and creates a large hole as it exists the body.
> I saw a video demonstration of this.




Dipshit.......if the killer at Uvalde had had a shotgun?

The killer at the Russian Polytecnic school shooting used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun.....murdered 20 adults, and injured 70, with the local police station 100 yards down the road...

The Uvalde killer had 90 minutes to murder small children....


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 24, 2022)

Today is the ONE month anniversary of the mass shooting at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. 
19 beautiful children, along with 2 of their wonderful teachers were slaughtered on May 24, 2022.
The mentally deranged guy who killed them,  had just turned 18 years old, and so was able to purchase an AR-15 rifle. 
I hear that these guns are still available for purchase, even with the new gun laws. (Biden is supposed to sign a few gun control measures into law today, June 24, 2022.)
The new gun control laws don't go far enough.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Today is the ONE month anniversary of the mass shooting at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.
> 19 beautiful children, along with 2 of their wonderful teachers were slaughtered on May 24, 2022.
> The mentally deranged guy who killed them,  had just turned 18 years old, and so was able to purchase an AR-15 rifle.
> I hear that these guns are still available for purchase, even with the new gun laws. (Biden is supposed to sign a few gun control measures into law today, June 24, 2022.)
> The new gun control laws don't go far enough.




And the reason they died......government failed them...at all levels.  The school failed to report him for the violence.....had he been arrested or committed because of this he would have popped on the background check....

The school administration made the school a gun free zone, which meant no one there was armed and could stop the killer....like the woman in West Virginia....who, that very same week, used her concealed carry permit and here legal gun to stop another mass public shooter, who was also armed with an AR-15....no one was killed in that attack...because she, with her pistol, stopped them.....



Dittos the police for the failure to arrest during the domestic violence, the threats against girls for rape and murder, the bag of tortured and dead cats...

The 19 cops with their body armor, rifles, and ballistic shields...unlike the woman in West Virgina who only had a handgun........didn't even check to see if the classroom door was locked against them...and whose democrat party police chief refused to send them into that classroom..

Had you god, government, done it's job, those kids might be alive today..


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Today is the ONE month anniversary of the mass shooting at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.
> 19 beautiful children, along with 2 of their wonderful teachers were slaughtered on May 24, 2022.
> The mentally deranged guy who killed them,  had just turned 18 years old, and so was able to purchase an AR-15 rifle.
> I hear that these guns are still available for purchase, even with the new gun laws. (Biden is supposed to sign a few gun control measures into law today, June 24, 2022.)
> The new gun control laws don't go far enough.




How does confiscating the firearms of law abiders help at all, MT?


Suppose I  am unarmed and in the NYC Subway or Central Park,  and a couple of thugs come up to me and threaten me with severe violence.    What guarantee can you give me that they will just walk away if I stand up and tell them to "Go Fuck Themselves"?      If I don't have a gun, I suppose a could try to grab theirs or just cuss them out.   What would you suggest I do to guarantee my safety?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Polishprince said:


> How does confiscating the firearms of law abiders help at all, MT?
> 
> 
> Suppose I  am unarmed and in the NYC Subway or Central Park,  and a couple of thugs come up to me and threaten me with severe violence.    What guarantee can you give me that they will just walk away if I stand up and tell them to "Go Fuck Themselves"?      If I don't have a gun, I suppose a could try to grab theirs or just cuss them out.   What would you suggest I do to guarantee my safety?




They can't answer that question...or they will say....I don't know anyone who has ever been mugged on the subway...therefore, no one needs guns.......

I ask these questions.......

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?

They will never answer those either...


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> That isn't a bullet fired from an AR-15. That is a bullet fired from a pistol. A bullet fired from an AR-15 expands inside the body and creates a large hole as it exists the body.
> I saw a video demonstration of this.


The description says .223 bullets.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> AR-15 firing .223 rounds into gelatin.


You notice the wound channel with the jacketed round is the same diameter as the bullet, even the hollow point only makes a channel double the size of the bullet.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> That isn't a bullet fired from an AR-15. That is a bullet fired from a pistol. A bullet fired from an AR-15 expands inside the body and creates a large hole as it exists the body.
> I saw a video demonstration of this.


Your video demonstration was wrong, or it was a specialized round.  Neither a jacketed round or hollow point round do the damage you are claiming.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 24, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Your video demonstration was wrong, or it was a specialized round.  Neither a jacketed round or hollow point round do the damage you are claiming.


I trust the demonstration. Thank you.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 24, 2022)

Polishprince said:


> How does confiscating the firearms of law abiders help at all, MT?
> 
> 
> Suppose I  am unarmed and in the NYC Subway or Central Park,  and a couple of thugs come up to me and threaten me with severe violence.    What guarantee can you give me that they will just walk away if I stand up and tell them to "Go Fuck Themselves"?      If I don't have a gun, I suppose a could try to grab theirs or just cuss them out.   What would you suggest I do to guarantee my safety?


Stay away from the subway and Central Park.
See how easy that was?


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Stay away from the subway and Central Park.
> See how easy that was?




Why should I, or anyone, "stay away" from publicly funded facilities that my tax dollars are paying for?

Or didn't you know who paid for Central Fucking Park?


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 24, 2022)

Polishprince said:


> Why should I, or anyone, "stay away" from publicly funded facilities that my tax dollars are paying for?
> 
> Or didn't you know who paid for Central Fucking Park?


I'm going to wash your mouth out with soap.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> How will you confiscate *all* of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....


Repealing it doesn’t mean guns would be confiscated or even against the law.  It would be up to the states.  You know…like abortion.


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I'm going to wash your mouth out with soap.


Do you think that my cussing ability is sufficient to defend myself if I get accosted in New York City?

Or are you willing to step aside from your gunophobic suggestion?


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 24, 2022)

Polishprince said:


> Do you think that my cussing ability is sufficient to defend myself if I get accosted in New York City?
> 
> Or are you willing to step aside from your gunophobic suggestion?


If you are courteous and polite to the "thugs" I'm sure they will be nice to you.
If all else fails tell them Ms. Turquoise is a friend of yours and she said "be nice".


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 24, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Repealing it doesn’t mean guns would be confiscated or even against the law.  It would be up to the states.  You know…like abortion.


The right to own a gun in enumerated in the US constitution... abortion is not...
Do you know what happens in late term abortions?... we can see limbs being pulled apart and fully formed babies being suck out of the womb....
You may be okay with that but its not okay with me....
We know more about *fetal development* today than we did in the 70's... *Way more*.... and any law allowing abortion especially late term abortion should be looked at again... at the state level.....
There is nothing wrong with that....


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 24, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> The right to own a gun in enumerated in the US constitution... abortion is not...
> Do you know what happens in late term abortions?... we can see limbs being pulled apart and fully formed babies being suck out of the womb....
> You may be okay with that but its not okay with me....
> We know more about *fetal development* today than we did in the 70's... *Way more*.... and any law allowing abortion especially late term abortion should be looked at again... at the state level.....
> There is nothing wrong with that....


You know what happens to a young child shot multiple times with an AR-15? Their bodies are blown to smithereens. They can only be identified by their DNA.
Shouldn't we try to ban AR-15s the same way you want to ban abortion?


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> You know what happens to a young child shot multiple times with an AR-15? Their bodies are blown to smithereens. They can only be identified by their DNA.
> Shouldn't we try to ban AR-15s the same way you want to ban abortion?


Actually I do... so this is your argument for unlimited abortion?....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Repealing it doesn’t mean guns would be confiscated or even against the law.  It would be up to the states.  You know…like abortion.



Nope…. The 2nd is a Right that predates the Constitution, is not created by or dependent on the Constitution or Bill of Rights….abortion is not a Right


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> You know what happens to a young child shot multiple times with an AR-15? Their bodies are blown to smithereens. They can only be identified by their DNA.
> Shouldn't we try to ban AR-15s the same way you want to ban abortion?



Wrong….when a killer is allowed to butcher children for 90 minutes, that wrecks their bodies….

Do you not understand it was the time he had alone with the kids that allowed him to do whatever he might have done….and had he used a shotgun over that same 90 minutes…it would have been much worse.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 25, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> You notice the wound channel with the jacketed round is the same diameter as the bullet, even the hollow point only makes a channel double the size of the bullet.


Good point.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 25, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Actually I do... so this is your argument for unlimited abortion?....


No. This is my argument for banning AR-15s.
Banning those guns is more important than banning abortion IMHO. I don't want to control a woman's body. I do want to remove a mass shooter's go to weapon.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> No. This is my argument for banning AR-15s.
> Banning those guns is more important than banning abortion IMHO. I don't want to control a woman's body. I do want to remove a mass shooter's go to weapon.




I know you have been told over and over again.....the AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for mass public shooters, handguns are.......you think you have the momentum to push a ban on AR-15s, so you are lying about them....typical anti-gun fanatic and why we know to never, ever trust you with poilitical power.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 25, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I trust the demonstration. Thank you.


How about posting a link to it so the rest us can see it.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 25, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> No. This is my argument for banning AR-15s.
> Banning those guns is more important than banning abortion IMHO. I don't want to control a woman's body. I do want to remove a mass shooter's go to weapon.


Its the soul of America that's broken not our gun laws... and you can start to fix the soul of our nation by stopping the brutal procedure of late term abortions... have you seen an abortion via ultra sound?... when a babies arms and legs are sucked apart as the baby gets sucked out of the mothers womb?...
Your priorities are backwards....
I would suggest that if you want to weaken law abiding folks right to a gun you first should stop voting for people that want to defund cops.... and folks that won't lock up criminals.....


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 25, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Its the soul of America that's broken not our gun laws... and you can start to fix the soul of our nation by stopping the brutal procedure of late term abortions... have you seen an abortion via ultra sound?... when a babies arms and legs are sucked apart as the baby gets sucked out of the mothers womb?...
> Your priorities are backwards....
> I would suggest that if you want to weaken law abiding folks right to a gun you first should stop voting for people that want to defund cops.... and folks that won't lock up criminals.....


Very few abortions are late term. What do you think a child's body looks like after it's been blown to pieces by an AR-15?


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 25, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Very few abortions are late term. What do you think a child's body looks like after it's been blown to pieces by an AR-15?


The challenge to roe v wade was a case of a state that wanted to limit abortions after the 15th week... no other nation randomly allows abortions after 15 weeks... the challenge did not include all abortions... so all we are talking about for now is late term....
I spent two deployments in Afghanistan and one in Iraq... I know what dead kids and adults look like... an AR 15 is a 22 cal round... if you wanted to make a real mess you would use a 45 cal handgun....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> No. This is my argument for banning AR-15s.
> Banning those guns is more important than banning abortion IMHO. I don't want to control a woman's body. I do want to remove a mass shooter's go to weapon.



Abortions kill babies in the millions each year …….. the AR-15 rifle kills fewer people each year than cars…….do you want us to ban cars that kill over 39,000 people each year?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> 
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Since when does a Supreme Court Justice become an expert in military strategy, homeland defense, world affairs for the next 100 or next 1000 years?  He can predict that no foreign force will ever hit our shores?  Or our Southern Border?  I mean if the attack was the Northern Border we don't need guns... But otherwise, how the fuck can Stevens predict that we don't need the population to be armed?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> There are some 400,000,000 privately owned firearms in this country. Who, exactly, are you sending to come get those?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed. The democrats will never have the votes needed to do it in either the House or the Senate. There's not a chance in Hell they get 38 States to ratify such an amendment.
> 
> The left needs to stop stupidly focusing on the one thing they want (a ban of all guns) and start coming up with real, viable compromises and solutions. At least they stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting those...


Compromises, you say?  Like taking just some of our guns instead of all of our guns?   When you say real, viable, compromises and solutions, please explain what you're thinking of.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.


I'll bet they couldn't.

70 million Trump voters, most passionate gun owners.. Less than a million military.  Many in the military would walk off the job.

Even in Communist China, a lone protester stopped an entire line of tanks.  I know Biden said the military would nuke gun owners but that isn't really going to happen. You get that, right?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 657516
> 
> Most of them have their own private collections and buy specialty firearms while deployed overseas and bring them back to the United States.
> 
> So I'll bet they'll refuse to carry out that order.


We have a much more woke military than when I was in decades ago.  I think many would happily follow the orders of their political masters against their own mothers.  But not all would.  They'd try but they could never disarm the population.

Noah Webster:
_*Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.*_​


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed"---Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens re-wording of the 2nd Amendment.
> This would repeal the original 2nd Amendment.


It won't remove the right to keep and bear arms.  Nothing government can do can remove the right.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> How will they take them?... will they bust down my door and shoot me?..... if you think they would or should than you support a very different kind of country than we currently live in.... you are talking about a tyrannical government like China or north Korea....


If the government wanted to do such a confiscation, they'd start by mandatory give backs and millions would comply, including many here who pretend to support gun rights but accept every gun control law they've ever seen.

There would still be 50 million gun owners, I'd guess, with 250 million guns - most of those who would turn in their guns are Fudds who own a single gun or two; those with many guns understand more and wouldn't be so easy.

Next, using local police, they'd start forced confiscations with a few low-level, easy targets.  Those targets would be made to look like they were domestic terrorists and we'd all believe the government and be so thrilled that the government saved us all... 

But by the time they got to a few dozen even, we're starting to wonder.  By the time they get to a couple hundred, we all know what's going on.  If the trigger in our brains went off exactly at the 200th confiscation, nationwide, confiscation 201 doesn't go well.  Confiscation 1000 is going pretty badly.  If it got to confiscation 10000 we're at full scale war.  More likely, before this point, the government has rethought any forced confiscation.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> It's interesting that you mention a civil war. I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War. The Southern slaveowners were absolutely against giving up their slaves. I guess they felt the same way you feel about giving up your guns.
> Wonder why I thought of that?


I know!  I know!....Cuz you're a racis!


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Do you know what asymmetrical warfare is?
> I'll give you a little time to look it up.


Cuz, you know, the US Military did so well in Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam.  Nothing against our fighting soldiers but they're led by idiots.  

Our fighting men would scare the shit out of me if I thought they were willing to go into American cities, unbounded by having to call DC for permission to fire, and simply wanted to take the city..  But that won't be the case.  They'll have to make sure they watch out for the black and brown communities, and don't shoot at any house with a rainbow flag... And woodwork201 will be standing outside in drag...they'll have to leave me alone..


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> You do realize that only 10% of the military actually see combat right?
> We have 1.4 million people in our military and only 10% fight. Now,get rid of a bunch of those since they'll refuse to shoot their family and friends and if they did what do you think their fellow military members would do?
> 
> Now we get to Americans that own firearms.
> ...


I thought you were going to say it but you didn't; though I'm sure you realize it.  Of those 132 million civilian gun owners, better than a million of them, perhaps millions, are trained, battle-hardened and experienced, war-fighting, veterans - and 140000 military fighters.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> We had a board member that used to say THINK at the ends of his posts....


Ms. Turquoise had him on ignore and never got the message.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Once again, for those too slow to grasp.  You cannot just "repeal" an amendment.  If the document is opened, the entire document is subject to change or repeal--including the amendments that you hold dear.  SMFH.


That's not true; prohibition was repealed.

If there's a constitutional convention then that convention could cover a lot of ground, not just a small, narrow, scope.  Congress, though, can pass an amendment that is narrowly focused and pass it to States for ratification.

It's important to understand the process if we're going to expect to use it to our benefit and hope to prevent its use against us.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> This is getting old.  You are not talking about "amendments."  You are discussing the "REPEAL" of an amendment.  They are not the same thing, nor are the mechanisms that are in place for the accomplishment of either.  Quit trying to cover your own stupidity under the guise of racism.


They're exactly the same thing. 

The 21st Amendment, section 1, simply says: *T*_*he eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.*_

Amendment 28 could simply say, "*The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.*"

We don't want that to happen but if we depend on people to help protect us from it who don't understand how the process works, we could easily be suckered.... Please do some research.


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 4, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> They're exactly the same thing.
> 
> The 21st Amendment, section 1, simply says: *T*_*he eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.*_
> 
> ...


I stand corrected.  However, according to one source, the odds of the second being repealed are roughly the same as an 80 year old person being struck by lightening during their lifetime.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 4, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> I stand corrected.  However, according to one source, the odds of the second being repealed are roughly the same as an 80 year old person being struck by lightening during their lifetime.


I hope you're right and I tend to agree in the short term but elected Republicans are followers and not leaders.  When the Democrats are in charge, the Democrats run things.  When the Republicans are in charge, the Democrats run things... 

I would not be at all surprised to see an effort get out of Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  It might be close in the States.

I think that the repeal is inevitable.  The question will be is whether or not there are enough Americans left by that time who still understand and love liberty to make the repeal, and any laws passed afterwards, meaningless and without effect.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Compromises, you say?  Like taking just some of our guns instead of all of our guns?   When you say real, viable, compromises and solutions, please explain what you're thinking of.



Or how about taking none of them? I'd certainly prefer _that_.

I believe that any new laws enacted should be done so in the name of further protecting the public.

I have no problem with background checks, and I believe that red flag laws can be written to protect a gun owner, or a potential gun owner, from someone simply making a malicious report about someone's mental stability. I certainly don't want some psychotic getting his hands on a gun, nor do I want anyone who's ever been convicted of a violent crime to have one. But, at the same time, I don't want someone who has no history of mental instability to be denied his 2nd Amendment rights just because his ex-girlfriend is a vengeful bitch.

Now, with background checks, I don't believe they should be tied to a gun purchase. John Q. Public should be able to have a background check conducted on him without him buying a gun. The same thing with a license. Someone should be allowed to obtain a license (in those States where it's required) regardless of whether or not they actually own or want to purchase a gun. It's like a concealed carry permit. I have one, but I have no legal obligation to carry a gun. 

Someone should be able to obtain a background check and license (where required) without any legal requirement that he purchase a gun.

Gun registration is pretty much a non-starter for me, simply because it doesn't, in any way, shape or form, make anyone more safe. All it does is identify someone as a gun owner, and that knowledge is not going to keep someone from being the victim of gun violence.

I would also move to enact almost inhumane punishments for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, so much so that, in practice, anyone who's convicted of a crime while in possession of a gun can be pretty sure that his life is, effectively, over...


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 5, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Or how about taking none of them? I'd certainly prefer _that_.
> 
> I believe that any new laws enacted should be done so in the name of further protecting the public.
> 
> ...




My concept.....


Free phone app....you submit the drivers license number, or the name and birthdate of an individual....and you get all the data a cop gets when they do a traffic stop.......if you are a felon or have outstanding arrest warrants....

The app is free, available to anyone, and it doesn't store the data......

Funny thing is....the gun grabbers never want to go for that.....they need gun registration......so they can ban and confiscate guns.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> My concept.....
> 
> 
> Free phone app....you submit the drivers license number, or the name and birthdate of an individual....and you get all the data a cop gets when they do a traffic stop.......if you are a felon or have outstanding arrest warrants....
> ...



There's just too much opportunity for misuse.

If I drop my wallet somewhere, I don't want the guy who finds it running a background check on me. Not that there's anything I'm worried about, it's just that my background is none of his fucking business.

The other problem is that whoever finds my wallet can "store" whatever data he receives if he has a pen and paper...



2aguy said:


> Funny thing is....the gun grabbers never want to go for that.....they need gun registration......so they can ban and confiscate guns.



Agreed...


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 5, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> There's just too much opportunity for misuse.
> 
> If I drop my wallet somewhere, I don't want the guy who finds it running a background check on me. Not that there's anything I'm worried about, it's just that my background is none of his fucking business.
> 
> ...




Free phone app......its the 21st century......


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Free phone app......its the 21st century......



And how would an app developer gain access to the same information that the police get? That would require the cooperation of literally every single municipality in the country.

Do you honestly _not _see the potential for abuse of someone's personal information with that?

If you lose you're wallet, and someone with half a brain in his head finds it, I can tell you right now, you're fucked. Are there any credit cards in that wallet? Got an American Express Centurion card in there? Now they know you've got money. If you've got a Centurion card, you probably have a lot of nice stuff in your house. A would-be thief can sit outside your house until everyone leaves, crash through your back door and rob you blind.

And that's all before he runs a background check on you and find out all kinds of information about you that, normally, he'd have absolutely no access to.

Like I said, there's just too much opportunity for abuse with your concept...


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 5, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> And how would an app developer gain access to the same information that the police get? That would require the cooperation of literally every single municipality in the country.
> 
> Do you honestly _not _see the potential for abuse of someone's personal information with that?
> 
> ...



Just needs access to the NICS data base and what the cops use in their cars


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 5, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> And how would an app developer gain access to the same information that the police get? That would require the cooperation of literally every single municipality in the country.
> 
> Do you honestly _not _see the potential for abuse of someone's personal information with that?
> 
> ...



If they have your wallet they know where you live anyway…whether you have a record or not isn’t important to them


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Just needs access to the NICS data base and what the cops use in their cars



So you think every swingin' dick in the country should be granted access to that?

How comfortable are you with a stranger having that information?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> If they have your wallet they know where you live anyway…whether you have a record or not isn’t important to them



With all due respect, if someone finds your wallet, you have no idea what's important to them. Is there something in your background they can blackmail you with? Can they extort money from you?

Yes, they know where you live. They can now watch as you take your lovely children to school. They can follow you and see what time you drop them off. They'll follow you to see what time you pick them up.

Maybe tomorrow they get to your children five minutes before you do when you go to pick them up.

They can find out where you work; where your wife works. If they have your name and address, they can sure as get her name, too.

Maybe you don't have an appreciation for how much information becomes vulnerable when only a little bit of seemingly innocuous information is released.

I understand the spirit of your suggestion and, while I applaud it, it's not something which could ever be viable...


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Free phone app......its the 21st century......


There are a few of us that don't have cell phones or live in a place where cell service is available.  I am lucky to have "dial-up speed" internet service.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 5, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> With all due respect, if someone finds your wallet, you have no idea what's important to them. Is there something in your background they can blackmail you with? Can they extort money from you?
> 
> Yes, they know where you live. They can now watch as you take your lovely children to school. They can follow you and see what time you drop them off. They'll follow you to see what time you pick them up.
> 
> ...



Yeah….which has no bearing on a phone app for background checks……


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 5, 2022)

In my time on this site there has been more than one instance where I've been in a debate with you where I had to just move on.

It's not that you were right and proved me wrong, it's that you were forceful enough in your argument, and your arguments, even though wrong, were at least of such quality that to continue to challenge them was just more work than I wanted to do.  You've been a very respectable debate opponent.  Until now.

This is the weakest, most full-of-shit, argument I have ever seen from you. What you're doing here is openly admitting that you are a gun controller.  All the arguments you've ever made against gun control and in support of the right to keep and bear arms, were lies.  

Like most who pretend to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution, you actually support neither because you can't support the 2nd Amendment without "shall not be infringed" and you can not support the Constitution without supporting the 2nd Amendment.  When it comes to intellectual honesty, those who believe the 2nd Amendment describes a militia or a State right are more honest than the posts below.



Canon Shooter said:


> Or how about taking none of them? I'd certainly prefer _that_.


Then how is that compromise?  The only outcome of compromise in the 2nd Amendment is that someone doesn't get some arm that the Amendment protects.

Just keep in mind that when you support gun control that ignores "shall not be infringed" then you accept that the Government is not created or bound by the Constitution but is some all-powerful agency that can do anything it chooses to anyone they choose whenever they choose and it is only by their providence that they let us live, let alone speak or own a gun or go to church.


Canon Shooter said:


> I believe that any new laws enacted should be done so in the name of further protecting the public.


Are you of the belief that some existing gun laws were not enacted in the name of further protecting the public?  Don't you think that the argument made in defense of every single one of them was to protect the public?  And most who supported those laws, including most Congress people who voted for those laws, believe the supported them in the name of further protecting the public.

How has that worked out?  The last 3 majorly covered shootings were all by people who bought their guns legally after all of the gun control laws.  Illinois even had red flag laws and the police  had been to the guy's house and taken his knives, swords, and guns in the past.  The guy had made threats to do shootings, to kill his family, to kill himself.  And yet, he was able to buy a gun.

Have all the laws against criminals having guns stopped a single criminal who ever wanted to get a gun and shoot someone?  Well, we can't know that but we know for certain that every convicted criminal who gets a gun and commits another murder or crime was able to get a gun.

So, please tell us which laws you think are going to work to further protect the public.



Canon Shooter said:


> I have no problem with background checks, and I believe that red flag laws can be written to protect a gun owner, or a potential gun owner, from someone simply making a malicious report about someone's mental stability.


You like background checks because they have such a wonderful track record of protecting people.  Like those in Buffalo, in Uvalde, and those in Highland Park?  Or what about Stoneman Douglas High School.  Seriously, please tell me of a case where background checks prevented a mass shooting.

I know; proving a negative and you can't do it.  But we know that almost every mass shooting in modern times was with a legally purchased gun that went through a background check.  Even the Sandy Hook killing was with a legally purchased gun but the killer killed his own mother to get it.



Canon Shooter said:


> I certainly don't want some psychotic getting his hands on a gun, nor do I want anyone who's ever been convicted of a violent crime to have one.


Please tell of a single case where a mass shooter had to buy a gun illegally to commit their crime?  How's that convicted felon thing doing in Chicago or anywhere else?  The only thing this law does, as with every gun law, is prevent those felons who actually were reformed, and all of their family members that live with them or visit routinely, from being able to protect themselves, though they have never been convicted of a crime.

I haven't searched it but I'd bet money that you've posted or thanked posts from others saying that gun laws only restrict the law abiding.



Canon Shooter said:


> But, at the same time, I don't want someone who has no history of mental instability to be denied his 2nd Amendment rights just because his ex-girlfriend is a vengeful bitch.


Really?  What if they go nuts a week after buying a gun?  What is the threshold of mental instability?  Who determines it?

Is being a Trump voter proof of mental instability?  Many here say it is.

Is a man walking around in public in a dress and high-heels and a beard, claiming to be a woman a sign of mental instability?  Of course it is, so do we stop all transvestites from owning guns?  Is having your dick cut off so you can fool other men into believing you're a woman so you can have male/male sex with unsuspecting men a sign of mental instability?  Of course it is, so no guns for transsexuals.


Canon Shooter said:


> Now, with background checks, I don't believe they should be tied to a gun purchase. John Q. Public should be able to have a background check conducted on him without him buying a gun. The same thing with a license. Someone should be allowed to obtain a license (in those States where it's required) regardless of whether or not they actually own or want to purchase a gun. It's like a concealed carry permit. I have one, but I have no legal obligation to carry a gun.


Why in the hell would I need to do a background check on myself?  I know if I'm a felon or not.  I might want to do a records check to see if the State has mistakenly tagged me with something incorrectly but that's not a background check.  Do you  think you have the right to do a background check on me, other than a public records check?  I mean, you can do that now.

But of all the stupid ideas you have here, and they're all pretty fucking stupid, buying a license to get the government's permission to do something you're not actually going to do, asking the government to check you out, is most certainly the stupidest idea I have ever heard in a gun control discussion.


Canon Shooter said:


> Gun registration is pretty much a non-starter for me, simply because it doesn't, in any way, shape or form, make anyone more safe. All it does is identify someone as a gun owner, and that knowledge is not going to keep someone from being the victim of gun violence.


Of course you support gun registration.  You support background checks and background checks require gun registration in order to be enforceable.


Canon Shooter said:


> I would also move to enact almost inhumane punishments for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, so much so that, in practice, anyone who's convicted of a crime while in possession of a gun can be pretty sure that his life is, effectively, over...


So what you're telling Sharon Tate's family is that the hacking, tortuous, death of their beloved daughter is not as serious as the death of someone's daughter who at least didn't see it coming and died instantly because she was shot in the back of the head.  Hacked to death with an axe is less evil than shot to death with a gun.

Beaten with a baseball bat in a robbery is not as bad as someone pointed a gun at you and demanded your money?

Some how Sharon Tate, and others who die violently with sharp or blunt instruments, end up just as dead as the ones shot with guns.

Why would not whatever is the worst, barely acceptable under the 8th Amendment, punishment for murder apply to all murderers regardless of the tool used to commit the crime?

Gun enhancements for criminals only prove that you actually believe that it is the gun and not the criminal.

You're a gun controller.  But it's a crowded space on this site so you'll never be lonely, that's for sure.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> My concept.....
> 
> 
> Free phone app....you submit the drivers license number, or the name and birthdate of an individual....and you get all the data a cop gets when they do a traffic stop.......if you are a felon or have outstanding arrest warrants....
> ...


Those apps exist today.  Every time I search for a name online all I get is pages of people wanting me to pay them 27 dollars for a public records search across all states.

If you're selling a gun privately you can ask the buyer if he will submit to such a search.  That's between you and him.  I sure wouldn't be buying your guns but there are plenty who probably would.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Free phone app......its the 21st century......


My washing machine has an app.  I installed it but didn't give it the permissions it wanted because it wanted access to my call records and my location.

I emailed them to ask why the hell would my washing machine need to know that.  Their response was that they needed it so they could tell where my machine was for understanding its operating environment. 

I informed them that I don't carry my washing machine with me and then I uninstalled the app.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> In my time on this site there has been more than one instance where I've been in a debate with you where I had to just move on.
> 
> It's not that you were right and proved me wrong, it's that you were forceful enough in your argument, and your arguments, even though wrong, were at least of such quality that to continue to challenge them was just more work than I wanted to do.  You've been a very respectable debate opponent.  Until now.
> 
> ...



You've made it clear that the only acceptable solution for you is to get rid of all the guns. 

Well, see, here's the thing: That's not happening. It's just not.

Registering guns makes no one safe, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

I want you to have a license to run your mouth. Until you have one, shut the fuck up...


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 6, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> You've made it clear that the only acceptable solution for you is to get rid of all the guns.
> 
> Well, see, here's the thing: That's not happening. It's just not.
> 
> ...



What a fucking lying hypocrite.  You propose gun control and I prove how unconstitutional, illogical, and just plain stupid is every thing you proposed.  You proposed mandatory background checks which, as we all know, require mandatory registration for enforcement so you really supported registration, not me.  And you now claim I am the one who wants the guns banned?  Unfucking believable.

That's about 6, so far, fake gun-rights-supporters, 6 Fudds, who have been fooling people here that they support gun rights when, in actuality, you and they are shrills for the Bloombergs and you know it.  I can't help but wonder if each of you is only here at the behest of the Bloombergs to interject your "reasonable gun control" ideas into the argument.  I wonder if you really are just an anti-gun plant.  

I know for sure that you're an anti-gun liar.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> What a fucking lying hypocrite.  You propose gun control and I prove how unconstitutional, illogical, and just plain stupid is every thing you proposed.  You proposed mandatory background checks which, as we all know, require mandatory registration for enforcement so you really supported registration, not me.  And you now claim I am the one who wants the guns banned?  Unfucking believable.
> 
> That's about 6, so far, fake gun-rights-supporters, 6 Fudds, who have been fooling people here that they support gun rights when, in actuality, you and they are shrills for the Bloombergs and you know it.  I can't help but wonder if each of you is only here at the behest of the Bloombergs to interject your "reasonable gun control" ideas into the argument.  I wonder if you really are just an anti-gun plant.
> 
> I know for sure that you're an anti-gun liar.



You're just a gun-snatching little bitch.

My stance on background checks is no secret. I've shared it in various threads. Either this is the only thread you're reading or you're an idiot.

I believe someone should be able to obtain a background check without purchasing a gun. There's no reason that it couldn't be treated like a concealed carry permit. I have carry permit, and there was absolutely no requirement that I own a gun to obtain it.

Well, why not do the same with background checks? That way, a person could get a background check without the need to pay for a concealed carry permit (which requires a background check).

It could be done, and it could be done easily, and there wouldn't be a single reason to register anything.

So, before you wet yourself yet again, try to engage your brain a little bit and try to comprehend the reality that an alternative can be accomplished.

I realize gun haters like you have some difficulty with that, but give it a shot, dipshit...


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 6, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That way, a person could get a background check without the need to* pay* for a concealed carry permit


Pay?  That sounds like an infringement on my rights to "bear arms."


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jul 6, 2022)

On July 4th, 2022 a crazed gunman on a tall building shot down on a group of people enjoying a parade. This sick creature had a record of mental health problems, but was still able to purchase firearms.
Why wasn't there some kind of red flag in place to stop him from buying those guns?
Kamala Harris was at a rally where she asked for a ban on AR-15s. This would be an EXCELLENT start.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jul 6, 2022)

Names and ages  of the people slaughtered on July 4, 2022 at the parade in Highland Park, Illinois.
1) Stephen Straus, 88 yrs old
2) Nicolas Toledo-Zaragosa, 78 yrs old
3) Katherine Goldstein, 64 yrs old
4) Jacquelyn Sundheim, 63 yrs old
5) Kevin McCarthy, 37 yrs old
6) Irinia McCarthy, 35 yrs old
7) Eduardo Uvaldo, 69 yrs old

Kevin and Irinia McCarthy were the parents of Aiden, a 2 yr old boy. Kevin covered his child's body with his own to save his life. Aiden was found later, wandering around covered in blood. Can you imagine the trauma this child is going to live with for the rest of his life?


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 6, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Why wasn't there some kind of red flag in place to stop him from buying those guns?


There was.  Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.  They are only affecting law-abiding citizens--criminals and mentally ill don't care.  Maybe you need to quit blaming the gun. As was evidenced near the first of the year, mass murder can be accomplished with an SUV at a parade just as easily as with a gun.  Are you going to call for a ban on SUV's?


----------



## Leo123 (Jul 6, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> On July 4th, 2022 a crazed gunman on a tall building shot down on a group of people enjoying a parade. This sick creature had a record of mental health problems, but was still able to purchase firearms.
> Why wasn't there some kind of red flag in place to stop him from buying those guns?
> Kamala Harris was at a rally where she asked for a ban on AR-15s. This would be an EXCELLENT start.


The gun didn't do it and Kamala is an idiot.   Ask Democrats why we no longer punish perps.


----------



## Leo123 (Jul 6, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Names and ages  of the people slaughtered on July 4, 2022 at the parade in Highland Park, Illinois.
> 1) Stephen Straus, 88 yrs old
> 2) Nicolas Toledo-Zaragosa, 78 yrs old
> 3) Katherine Goldstein, 64 yrs old
> ...


Standing on dead bodies to make your dubvious point is disgusting.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jul 6, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Standing on dead bodies to make your dubvious point is disgusting.


I am honoring them. I want their names to be known. They were people who had lives and families just like us. You notice I didn't name the monster who killed them; he deserves no recognition.  
If you think my honoring the victims is disgusting, don't read my post.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 6, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Pay?  That sounds like an infringement on my rights to "bear arms."



Well, I suppose I could've gone to war with the state of Florida, but it hardly seemed worth it...


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 6, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, I suppose I could've gone to war with the state of Florida, but it hardly seemed worth it...


That's the problem with the whole issue.  People and the NRA are letting these morons wear us down.  On multiple fronts in the US, we have paid CC permits, limited magazine capacities, assault weapon bans, etc.  The SCOTUS just ruled that magazine limits are unconstitutional, but there is still a brand new law in WA that limits magazine sizes.  That alone should negate the entire law, but it won't until someone takes them to court.  These frivolous attacks should carry monetary penalties on every legislator in the nation for knowingly introducing/passing an unconstitutional law.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 6, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> That's the problem with the whole issue.  People and the NRA are letting these morons wear us down.  On multiple fronts in the US, we have paid CC permits, limited magazine capacities, assault weapon bans, etc.  The SCOTUS just ruled that magazine limits are unconstitutional, but there is still a brand new law in WA that limits magazine sizes.  That alone should negate the entire law, but it won't until someone takes them to court.  These frivolous attacks should carry monetary penalties on every legislator in the nation for knowingly introducing/passing an unconstitutional law.



So, what are you doing about it?

I don't ask that to be snarky, I'm asking you sincerely. Are you doing anything to change things?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 6, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> You're just a gun-snatching little bitch.
> 
> My stance on background checks is no secret. I've shared it in various threads. Either this is the only thread you're reading or you're an idiot.
> 
> ...


Background checks = registration = confiscation.  You support confiscation.  You're the gun grabber.

You keep trying to call me a gun grabber?  I am probably the only person on this board that fully defends the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed".  You'll never find a post from me that could ever be twisted to suggest I support banning guns.  

Like a few other Fudds on this site, that's just your way of redirecting attention from your own anti-gun posts.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 7, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I am honoring them. I want their names to be known. They were people who had lives and families just like us. You notice I didn't name the monster who killed them; he deserves no recognition.
> If you think my honoring the victims is disgusting, don't read my post.


More black people were killed in Chicago over the same weekend.  Far more black people shot and wounded.  But like all racist, anti-gun, leftists, you don't care at all about black babies.   You really don't care about any of the dead; you only care about the guns that law-abiding people have.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jul 7, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> More black people were killed in Chicago over the same weekend.  Far more black people shot and wounded.  But like all racist, anti-gun, leftists, you don't care at all about black babies.   You really don't care about any of the dead; you only care about the guns that law-abiding people have.


I care about Black people very much. I'm Black. My love for Black people doesn't cancel my concern for people of other races.
The people who were killed in Buffalo, NY by that sick racist were Black. 
The children who were slaughtered in Uvalde, TX last month were Hispanic. 
The people who were killed on July 4th were a diverse group. 
I care about ALL of them. It's not about race or political party for me.
It's kinda childish to attach labels to people.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 7, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Background checks = registration = confiscation.  You support confiscation.  You're the gun grabber.



Um, I've been pretty clear that I do not support registration at all. If you believe otherwise, you're a fucking retard.

Find me a post of mine in which I say I support registration and I'll buy you a house.

You (well, not a gun-grabbing pussy like you, but someone) should be able to walk into a gun dealer and say "I'd like to get a background check, please" and get a background check. Period. You shouldn't have to purchase a gun to get a background check. If you don't purchase a gun, there's nothing to register.

It's similar to getting a concealed carry permit. You can get one without even owning a gun. You get a background check but, since you don't own a gun, you have nothing to register.

Seriously, if that concept is above your head, that's sad, because it's pretty fucking simple...


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 7, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I care about Black people very much. I'm Black. My love for Black people doesn't cancel my concern for people of other races.
> The people who were killed in Buffalo, NY by that sick racist were Black.
> The children who were slaughtered in Uvalde, TX last month were Hispanic.
> The people who were killed on July 4th were a diverse group.
> ...


Then why are you fighting against a gun that killed far less than 500 people in a year, considering that all rifle models kill fewer than 500 people in a year, nationwide?  Why, instead, aren't you fighting the lack of law-enforcement that lets criminals loose on the streets and kill far, far, more than 500 black people, including black babies, in just Chicago, and many times that many dead black people nationwide?

No, being black is not evidence of compassion for black people.  It should be, but it's not.  You, IM2, and others here and across the nation are the proof.  You don't care about black babies, white babies, or any baby.  You care about the message your Democrat masters have ordered you to deliver: ban guns.  

Welcome back to the plantation.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans, white, black, and otherwise, died to get you off of the plantation and you just walked back under your own power.  How sad for you and for the families of those who died trying to defend your ancestors.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 7, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Um, I've been pretty clear that I do not support registration at all. If you believe otherwise, you're a fucking retard.
> 
> Find me a post of mine in which I say I support registration and I'll buy you a house.


You said you support background checks.  It's known to all who support gun rights that background checks = registration = confiscation.  I need 4 bedrooms and at least 2.5 baths, thank you.

In order to enforce background checks it is mandatory that guns be registered.  If guns aren't registered then how can the government know when a gun changed hands?  It is impossible to support background checks without supporting registration.  At a minimum, background checks require the registration of every new gun purchased.

You support gun registration.  You are the gun grabber between the two of us.

By the way, how has background checks worked out in the past couple of months?   Do you have any information at all of where a background check has prevented any criminal from getting a gun or any crazy person from going on a shooting spree?

Have you forgotten the basic and absolute tenet of gun rights advocates: Only the law abiding follow the law.  Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.  Gun control doesn't stop a single crime.

Do you believe that a bad guy determined to do evil will stop and say, "Well, I was going to go to the bodega and shoot the owner to get 20 bucks but it's against the law for me to own a gun and I can't pass a background check.  Guess I'll stay home and read the Bible instead"?

You're the gun grabber, idiot.  


Canon Shooter said:


> You (well, not a gun-grabbing pussy like you, but someone) should be able to walk into a gun dealer and say "I'd like to get a background check, please" and get a background check. Period. You shouldn't have to purchase a gun to get a background check. If you don't purchase a gun, there's nothing to register.


Why the fuck would someone go into a gun shop and ask to have a background check done?  Maybe they forgot about that one time when they robbed a liquor store?  Or forgot when they raped the 80-year-old woman while robbing her house?  

And why the fuck would you expect a gun shop to be an agent of the FBI and do a background check for you?  Why not go to Baskin-Robbins and say, "No, I don't want any ice cream but would you do a background check because I don't remember if I ever raped anybody?"


Canon Shooter said:


> It's similar to getting a concealed carry permit. You can get one without even owning a gun. You get a background check but, since you don't own a gun, you have nothing to register.



A defender of the right to keep and bear arms and of the 2nd Amendment would, as I do, argue that you don't need a permit or license to exercise a fundamental human right that is explicitly protected by the United States Constitution.  

A gun controller/grabber, like you, would use the fact that a license is required to exercise your right to keep and bear arms as a defense of even more onerous gun control measures.

Yet, just like all leftists, you project your gun control desires on to me, the most vocal, consistent, outspoken, gun rights defender on this, or any other, Internet site in the world.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 8, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You said you support background checks.  It's known to all who support gun rights that background checks = registration = confiscation.  I need 4 bedrooms and at least 2.5 baths, thank you.



I've already explained how one could get a background check without registering anything,

That you can't acknowledge that shows just how big a fucking retard you are...



woodwork201 said:


> In order to enforce background checks it is mandatory that guns be registered.



You truly are fucking a retard...




woodwork201 said:


> If guns aren't registered then how can the government know when a gun changed hands?  It is impossible to support background checks without supporting registration.  At a minimum, background checks require the registration of every new gun purchased.



No, it doesn't have to...



woodwork201 said:


> You support gun registration.  You are the gun grabber between the two of us.



You're a fucking retard...




woodwork201 said:


> By the way, how has background checks worked out in the past couple of months?   Do you have any information at all of where a background check has prevented any criminal from getting a gun or any crazy person from going on a shooting spree?



No system is going to be perfect. But the fact of the matter is that those who shouldn't have guns still get them, regardless of the law...



woodwork201 said:


> Have you forgotten the basic and absolute tenet of gun rights advocates: Only the law abiding follow the law.  Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.  Gun control doesn't stop a single crime.



That's 100% true...



woodwork201 said:


> Do you believe that a bad guy determined to do evil will stop and say, "Well, I was going to go to the bodega and shoot the owner to get 20 bucks but it's against the law for me to own a gun and I can't pass a background check.  Guess I'll stay home and read the Bible instead"?



No, mental retards like you believe such nonsense...



woodwork201 said:


> You're the gun grabber, idiot.
> 
> Why the fuck would someone go into a gun shop and ask to have a background check done?  Maybe they forgot about that one time when they robbed a liquor store?  Or forgot when they raped the 80-year-old woman while robbing her house?



Or maybe there's nothing nefarious in their past and they just want to have a background check conducted...



woodwork201 said:


> And why the fuck would you expect a gun shop to be an agent of the FBI and do a background check for you?  Why not go to Baskin-Robbins and say, "No, I don't want any ice cream but would you do a background check because I don't remember if I ever raped anybody?"



You're a fucking retard. Are you ready for a diaper change, retard?



woodwork201 said:


> A defender of the right to keep and bear arms and of the 2nd Amendment would, as I do, argue that you don't need a permit or license to exercise a fundamental human right that is explicitly protected by the United States Constitution.



I've not argued that someone should have either.

But, you're a fucking retarded fuck, so you wouldn't know that...



woodwork201 said:


> A gun controller/grabber, like you, would use the fact that a license is required to exercise your right to keep and bear arms as a defense of even more onerous gun control measures.



I've not done that, retard...



woodwork201 said:


> Yet, just like all leftists, you project your gun control desires on to me, the most vocal, consistent, outspoken, gun rights defender on this, or any other, Internet site in the world.



You're retarded. That's why you shouldn't have a gun. You're a fucking retard...


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jul 8, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Then why are you fighting against a gun that killed far less than 500 people in a year, considering that all rifle models kill fewer than 500 people in a year, nationwide?  Why, instead, aren't you fighting the lack of law-enforcement that lets criminals loose on the streets and kill far, far, more than 500 black people, including black babies, in just Chicago, and many times that many dead black people nationwide?
> 
> No, being black is not evidence of compassion for black people.  It should be, but it's not.  You, IM2, and others here and across the nation are the proof.  You don't care about black babies, white babies, or any baby.  You care about the message your Democrat masters have ordered you to deliver: ban guns.
> 
> Welcome back to the plantation.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans, white, black, and otherwise, died to get you off of the plantation and you just walked back under your own power.  How sad for you and for the families of those who died trying to defend your ancestors.


That was a great rant. Let me answer you:
1) I don't have a Democrat master. I think for myself.
2) I don't live on a plantation. You folks need to come up with some new insults. 
3) I give honor and respect to the people who died to free me and my people. The sad thing is that the powers against full freedom for Blacks have a strong system in place. 
Wait---I thought this thread was about guns.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 9, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I've already explained how one could get a background check without registering anything,
> 
> That you can't acknowledge that shows just how big a fucking retard you are...
> 
> ...



Once again, why go to a gunshop for a background check if you're not buying a gun?  Are gunshops supposed to be agents of the FBI?  You also didn't say what kind of idiot needs a background check to tell them if they've committed a felony.

But why the gun shop?  Why not go to Baskin Robbins for your background check?  Are gunshops now slaves?

You've lost all credibility.  Name calling and diversion is all you've got because the only honest answer you can give to anything I've asked you or posted in response to you is to admit that you're a gun controller.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Once again, why go to a gunshop for a background check if you're not buying a gun?



Why go to the DMV if you don't have a car?



woodwork201 said:


> Are gunshops supposed to be agents of the FBI?



Hey, I found your baby picture.

Nice tie...









woodwork201 said:


> You also didn't say what kind of idiot needs a background check to tell them if they've committed a felony.



Not surprisingly, you've completely missed the point...



woodwork201 said:


> But why the gun shop?  Why not go to Baskin Robbins for your background check?  Are gunshops now slaves?
> 
> You've lost all credibility.



Says the retard who just asked why we shouldn't go to Baskin Robbins to get a background check...



woodwork201 said:


> Name calling and diversion is all you've got because the only honest answer you can give to anything I've asked you or posted in response to you is to admit that you're a gun controller.



Insofar as I don't want violent felons or mental midgets like you to have a gun, yeah, I support such restrictions. Beyond that, I'm really pretty open.

When I got my concealed carry permit, a background check was performed. At no time was I ever asked if I owned a firearm. At no time was I ever asked if I intended to purchase a firearm. It merely shows a gun dealer that I have had a background check performed on me and there's nothing contained in that check which would preclude me from carrying a firearm. 

So, essentially, what it did was make it so that I can walk into a gun dealer, purchase a gun and walk out with that the same day, simply because a background check has already been performed. The gun dealer needn't obtain another background check. 

There's not a single reason in the world why a similar procedure cannot be developed for someone simply wanting a background check and who may wish, at some point in the future, to buy a gun but not carry it...


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 10, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Insofar as I don't want violent felons or mental midgets like you to have a gun, yeah, I support such restrictions. Beyond that, I'm really pretty open.


I'm glad that is working out so well and repeat gun crime is virtually non-existent in the United States.  You're such a fucking moron.  Did you not read the post where I explained that criminals don't follow the law?

Background checks don't work.  Felons get guns anyway.  Those who haven't yet been caught buy guns and continue their in-progress crime sprees.  Background checks never stopped a single felon from getting a gun in preparation of their next shooting or robbery.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I'm glad that is working out so well and repeat gun crime is virtually non-existent in the United States.  You're such a fucking moron.  Did you not read the post where I explained that criminals don't follow the law?
> 
> Background checks don't work.  Felons get guns anyway.  Those who haven't yet been caught buy guns and continue their in-progress crime sprees.  Background checks never stopped a single felon from getting a gun in preparation of their next shooting or robbery.



If background checks can keep a sick fuck like you from obtaining a firearm, I'm all for them...


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Aug 22, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> How will you confiscate *all* of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....



They don't have to.
By indoctrinating young people, the pro-gun group of Americans will dwindle (regardless of current buying trends).

Right now, the 2nd Amendment is almost entirely supported by old men aged 55+
It won't be long until they are all gone and young people will have gun phobias and not want them.

IOW, over time it will get easier and easier to have people turn them in and besides, ammo, insurance requirements and bullet taxes will make it unaffordable for most anyway.


----------



## Concerned American (Aug 22, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> insurance requirements and bullet taxes


These are infringements on rights guaranteed by the 2A.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 22, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> They don't have to.
> By indoctrinating young people, the pro-gun group of Americans will dwindle (regardless of current buying trends).
> 
> Right now, the 2nd Amendment is almost entirely supported by old men aged 55+
> ...


I've trained my son's well. Don't count on it.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Aug 22, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.


Not hardly.  One the military wouldn’t do it.  Using the military for civilian law enforcement violates the law.  Two, every member of the military vows to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION.  As long as the Second Amendment exists, military members won’t be part of any gun confiscation scheme.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Aug 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Short of a constitutional convention, you can't repeal the 2nd.  That is great.


And since most of the states are conservative, the resulting changes would make liberals very unhappy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 23, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Not hardly.  One the military wouldn’t do it.  Using the military for civilian law enforcement violates the law.  Two, every member of the military vows to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION.  As long as the Second Amendment exists, military members won’t be part of any gun confiscation scheme.


They did in new Orleans during Katrina.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Aug 23, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> They don't have to.
> By indoctrinating young people, the pro-gun group of Americans will dwindle (regardless of current buying trends).
> 
> Right now, the 2nd Amendment is almost entirely supported by old men aged 55+
> ...


Those 55+ taught their kids and they in turn will teach their own children the 2nd Amendment has been around for over 230 years it ain't going anywhere.


----------



## hadit (Aug 23, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> So you want the US military to use force on American citizens?....


The sad thing is, I believe some of them really DO want to see their political opponents riddled with bullets.


----------



## Hellbilly (Aug 23, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Not hardly.  One the military wouldn’t do it.  Using the military for civilian law enforcement violates the law.  Two, every member of the military vows to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION.  As long as the Second Amendment exists, military members won’t be part of any gun confiscation scheme.


That has nothing to do with my post.


----------



## hadit (Aug 23, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> It's interesting that you mention a civil war. I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War. The Southern slaveowners were absolutely against giving up their slaves. I guess they felt the same way you feel about giving up your guns.
> Wonder why I thought of that?


Maybe because you have an issue that requires you to draw parallels where they don't exist? Last I checked, guns weren't people.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 23, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Those 55+ taught their kids and they in turn will teach their own children the 2nd Amendment has been around for over 230 years it ain't going anywhere.


Teach your children the way and they will never be a slave.


----------



## Concerned American (Aug 23, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War.


How many civil wars do you or that book contend the US has had?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Aug 23, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> It's interesting that you mention a civil war. I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War. The Southern slaveowners were absolutely against giving up their slaves. I guess they felt the same way you feel about giving up your guns.
> Wonder why I thought of that?


You want to play that game. People like Mao and Stalin disarmed their citizens and proceeded to murder millions. I guess they felt the same way you do about taking away peoples guns.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> How will you confiscate *all* of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....


Few people want to confiscate all the guns, just like few people think Jeff Bezos should earn the same income as someone working at a fast food restaurant. 

When considering a gun control law the question should not be, "Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?" but "Will this law reduce the crime rate?"


----------



## Rambunctious (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> Few people want to confiscate all the guns, just like few people think Jeff Bezos should earn the same income as someone working at a fast food restaurant.
> 
> When considering a gun control law the question should not be, "Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?" but "Will this law reduce the crime rate?"


Wrong... the constitution is there to protect you from an over bearing government and its a book of rules the government must follow... if you weaken it for any reason you are harming yourself and infringing on your freedom....
Look at the cities today... the streets are dangerous... to allow anti 2nd amendment activists to win is dangerous....
The government would have a better chance if they did their job and prosecuted criminals to the full extent of the law... and made society safe for all...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 24, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Wrong... the constitution is there to protect you from an over bearing government and its a book of rules the government must follow... if you weaken it for any reason you are harming yourself and infringing on your freedom....
> Look at the cities today... the streets are dangerous... to allow anti 2nd amendment activists to win is dangerous....
> The government would have a better chance if they did their job and prosecuted criminals to the full extent of the law... and made society safe for all...


It is worse then that the anti firearms crowd want to limit and restrict law abiding people from ownership while totally ignoring criminals, Name one law that is enforced against criminals that stops or prevents them from using firearms illegally? Further the Judges and prosecutors in dem cities routinely bargain away all the firearms charges and don't sentence the criminal on them.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> Few people want to confiscate all the guns, just like few people think Jeff Bezos should earn the same income as someone working at a fast food restaurant.
> 
> When considering a gun control law the question should not be, "Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?" but "Will this law reduce the crime rate?"


Actually, the FIRST consideration for EVERY law should be "Is this consistent with the Constitution", because if it's not, it needs to be overturned by the SC.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Wrong... the constitution is there to protect you from an over bearing government and its a book of rules the government must follow... if you weaken it for any reason you are harming yourself and infringing on your freedom....
> Look at the cities today... the streets are dangerous... to allow anti 2nd amendment activists to win is dangerous....
> The government would have a better chance if they did their job and prosecuted criminals to the full extent of the law... and made society safe for all...


An argument I do not accept is that we need the Second Amendment to protect us from the government. That is the argument of criminals and terrorists. As long as the U.S. government remains a democracy I want the government to have the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

hadit said:


> Actually, the FIRST consideration for EVERY law should be "Is this consistent with the Constitution", because if it's not, it needs to be overturned by the SC.


The Constitution and the Constitutional Amendments to not give the Supreme Court the right to overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> The Constitution and the Constitutional Amendments to not give the Supreme Court the right to overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.


You are incorrect. They absolutely have not only the right, but the responsibility to overturn legislation that violates the Constitution, no matter how long it's been around or how popular it is. Tell you what, since you sound like you really believe that, post the law that prevents them from doing it.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> An argument I do not accept is that we need the Second Amendment to protect us from the government. That is the argument of criminals and terrorists. As long as the U.S. government remains a democracy I want the government to have the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.


What will you do when it ceases to be a Representative Republic and a leader ends voting and appoints himself dictator for life? What then?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> The Constitution and the Constitutional Amendments to not give the Supreme Court the right to overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.


Yes as a matter of fact it does.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

hadit said:


> You are incorrect. They absolutely have not only the right, but the responsibility to overturn legislation that violates the Constitution, no matter how long it's been around or how popular it is. Tell you what, since you sound like you really believe that, post the law that prevents them from doing it.


Article III​
Share:
  
Section 1.​
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2.​
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (Note: changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (Note: changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3.​
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

-----------

There is nothing here about overturning popular legislation. The Constitution has lasted as long as it has because it has bent to changes in popular opinion. The Constitution is nothing more than a guideline on how to operate a representative democracy. If it does not clearly say something, we should assume that it is silent on the subject, and leave it up to the voters.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> Article III​
> Share:
> Section 1.​
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
> ...


How does that say the SC can't overturn bad legislation?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> Article III​
> Share:
> Section 1.​
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
> ...


Dumb ass the court DETERMINES what is and what is NOT Constitutional.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

hadit said:


> How does that say the SC can't overturn bad legislation?


It does not say that it can. That is what matters.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> It does not say that it can. That is what matters.


It is the job of the SC to weigh challenges brought against laws to see if the laws in question are Constitutional. If a past SC ruled incorrectly by, say, creating a brand spanking new Constitutional right out of the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution or by relying on foreign law, a future court has not only the right, but the responsibility to overturn that decision. IOW, nowhere does the law forbid the SC from overturning any law it finds unconstitutional.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> It does not say that it can. That is what matters.


LOL it states they are final word on all matters involving the Government.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dumb ass the court DETERMINES what is and what is NOT Constitutional.


Right now that is true, but I do not think it should be true.

The Supreme Court usurped the right of judicial review in the Marbury vs Madison case of 1803. 

As long as the Supreme Court makes decisions one approves of it is easy to imagine that it consists of nine sages of infinite wisdom who spend their days poring over ancient manuscripts in search of the absolute truth. Instead the Supreme Court justices read their personal values into the vague wordings of the Constitution.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

hadit said:


> What will you do when it ceases to be a Representative Republic and a leader ends voting and appoints himself dictator for life? What then?


Then I would say that violence against the government was justified. It is not justified now.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> Then I would say that violence against the government was justified. It is not justified now.



So, am I to understand that when _*that*_ time comes, "We the People" are to travel to your house and knock on your door and appeal to you and your brain trust of similarly minded determiners, and beg you to grant "We the People" the right to keep and bear arms in political self defense?

Can I ask how, where and from whom did you come into possession of and become the arbiter, determinator and disseminator of this fundamental and once "self-evident" principle of our government and right of the people?  

I've never read _anything_ that would negate or rescind the principles that all governmental power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on the authority of the people and are instituted for the people's peace, safety and happiness. And that for the advancement of _those_ ends, the people have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Again. how, when and _from whom_ did you come to be the arbiter of those principles, the determinator of accepted time and place of exercise and final disseminator of that right?


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> Then I would say that violence against the government was justified. It is not justified now.


Do you not understand the following:

1. It is possible that the American government could be taken over by totalitarian forces. We've seen it happen repeatedly throughout world history.
2. You want to disarm the people based on what you see NOW. Today's environment may not remain forever.
3. Put 1 & 2 together. Now you have a totalitarian government in place and the people disarmed. What is wrong with this picture?
4. The very fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in private hands is one of the factors than make those who would attempt to impose a totalitarian government on America think twice.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> Few people want to confiscate all the guns, just like few people think Jeff Bezos should earn the same income as someone working at a fast food restaurant.
> 
> When considering a gun control law the question should not be, "Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?" but "Will this law reduce the crime rate?"


Or should we raid that home without a warrant because we think the one living in it violated a law.


----------



## Rambunctious (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> An argument I do not accept is that we need the Second Amendment to protect us from the government. That is the argument of criminals and terrorists. As long as the U.S. government remains a democracy I want the government to have the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.


Earlier this year the NY state government said they wouldn't obey any ruling from this SCOTUS... if you think a powerful government won't try one day to rule over you like a dictatorship and take your freedoms away and force you to surrender your property rights you aren't thinking...
I'm a Marine and I don't support fighting my government that's why I want an armed society so we don't have to fight them....
Same concept in national security... a well armed USA is what keeps the peace.... a well armed militia and a well armed populous keeps our government in check....


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

Abatis said:


> So, am I to understand that when _*that*_ time comes, "We the People" are to travel to your house and knock on your door and appeal to you and your brain trust of similarly minded determiners, and beg you to grant "We the People" the right to keep and bear arms in political self defense?
> 
> Can I ask how, where and from whom did you come into possession of and become the arbiter, determinator and disseminator of this fundamental and once "self-evident" principle of our government and right of the people?
> 
> ...


You seem to think that anyone who dislikes what a democratic government is doing is justified in resisting violently. I disagree. I want them to be punished.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

hadit said:


> Do you not understand the following:
> 
> 1. It is possible that the American government could be taken over by totalitarian forces. We've seen it happen repeatedly throughout world history.
> 2. You want to disarm the people based on what you see NOW. Today's environment may not remain forever.
> ...


The fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in private hands is responsible for the large number of gun related crime and death. That is what I worry about, and not the possibility of a dictatorship in America. However, if a dictatorship does come to the United States, it will come from Trump and his minions, not from anyone or any group on the left.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Or should we raid that home without a warrant because we think the one living in it violated a law.


Suggesting that I am advocating that is an example of the straw man fallacy.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Same concept in national security... a well armed USA is what keeps the peace.... a well armed militia and a well armed populous keeps our government in check....


Sorry, I am not afraid of the government. I fear Trump, but not the government. Trump will never become the dictator of the United States because too many Americans like me hate him.


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

I like the government. I want a large, powerful, expensive government paid for by high taxes on the rich, a government that is receptive to the majority will, and which crushes those who resist violently. The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court interfere with that. Consequently, I want the Second Amendment to be repealed, and I want the Supreme Court to be substantially weakened.

I want tax evasion and the ownership of an unregistered gun to be punished severely.


----------



## Rambunctious (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> Sorry, I am not afraid of the government. I fear Trump, but not the government. Trump will never become the dictator of the United States because too many Americans like me hate him.


You fear Trump?... why? he isn't even in office... I don't fear the government either... because we the people have the ability and the means to defend our rights...
Take away that ability and you will ensure a conflict... just like if America gave up its weapons we would be taken over.... but hey!....
Why is it that we can't have a single thread of communication with a liberal without Trump's name coming up eventually?...


----------



## Friends (Aug 24, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> You fear Trump?... why? he isn't even in office... I don't fear the government either... because we the people have the ability and the means to defend our rights...
> Take away that ability and you will ensure a conflict... just like if America gave up its weapons we would be taken over.... but hey!....
> Why is it that we can't have a single thread of communication with a liberal without Trump's name coming up eventually?...


If you think I am a doctrinaire, liberal partisan, read my comments in the "Race Relations/Racism" section, and especially my thread "What is race realism?




__





						Zone1 - What is race realism?
					

Race realism is the belief that race is an important biological classification of humans and that the races differ in average characteristics necessary for the creation and maintenance of successful societies and civilizations. These are intelligence, obedience to the law, and monogamy. That the...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Rambunctious (Aug 24, 2022)

Friends said:


> If you think I am a doctrinaire, liberal partisan, read my comments in the "Race Relations/Racism" section, and especially my thread "What is race realism?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I don't know what you are but maybe a little paranoid and propagandized by our media....
Trump provided us with a great economy relative peace abroad and a bright futures market up until covid shut us down...
So why you fear him escapes me...


----------



## Abatis (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> You seem to think that anyone who dislikes what a democratic government is doing is justified in resisting violently. I disagree. I want them to be punished.



I made no such claim (*beyond reciting Article I, Section's 1 and 2 of my state's constitution*, which states the foundational principles of a constitutional republic): 

*§ 1.  Inherent rights of mankind.*​​All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.​​*§ 2.  Political powers.*​​All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.​
My post was focused on _you_ and what *you* believe, which indisputably agrees that there are justifications for violent resistance to government . . .   I was just asking _you_ how, when and _from whom_ did *you* come to be the arbiter of those principles, the determinator of accepted time and place of exercise and final disseminator of that right?


----------



## themirrorthief (Aug 25, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> So you want the US military to use force on American citizens?....


take away the governments guns first...then we will talk about it


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 25, 2022)

The last movie I watched where the citizens were disarmed was "Schindler's List.....didn't work out so well for the Jews and other folks that didn't subscribe to nazism. Most of these mass shootings are staged and since the Smith-Mundt act was repealed, it's perfectly legal to use propaganda to sway public opinion.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Well I don't know what you are but maybe a little paranoid and propagandized by our media....
> Trump provided us with a great economy relative peace abroad and a bright futures market up until covid shut us down...
> So why you fear him escapes me...


Trump is ignorant and impulsive. In 2016 when a campaign aide tried to explain the Constitution to him his eyes glazed over with indifference and incomprehension. When he was asked to read part of the Constitution out loud he said it looked like a foreign language. COVID-19 shut us down because Trump responded too late.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I made no such claim (*beyond reciting Article I, Section's 1 and 2 of my state's constitution*, which states the foundational principles of a constitutional republic):
> 
> *§ 1.  Inherent rights of mankind.*​​All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.​​*§ 2.  Political powers.*​​All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.​
> My post was focused on _you_ and what *you* believe, which indisputably agrees that there are justifications for violent resistance to government . . .   I was just asking _you_ how, when and _from whom_ did *you* come to be the arbiter of those principles, the determinator of accepted time and place of exercise and final disseminator of that right?


There is never a justification for violently resisting a democratic government.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> There are some 400,000,000 privately owned firearms in this country. Who, exactly, are you sending to come get those?


They can be bought by the government/turned in. After an amnesty period those found in possession of an illegal firearm can be prosecuted and the firearm confiscated. It's not rocket science. Except to gun nuts.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> They can be bought by the government/turned in. After an amnesty period those found in possession of an illegal firearm can be prosecuted and the firearm confiscated. It's not rocket science. Except to gun nuts.



The problem with you, and others on the idiot left, is that you insist on labeling someone who wants to exercise a Constitutional right as a "nut".

There's not even the slightest chance that I would participate in a buy-back program.  And, if you think I'm alone in that regard, you're out of your fuckin' mind. Buy-back programs don't work. In Seattle in 1992, a buy-back program collected 1,172 firearms. A subsequent study of the program compared firearm-related events per month before and after the program, and it was found that gun crime actually _increased_.

I'm a member of a relatively small group of people who has actually used a legally concealed weapon to protect myself and a loved one. There were two instances, actually. In neither case would the police have arrived in time to protect us (if we could've called them at all), and I'm confident that each instance would've resulted in me and my loved one being killed or, at the very least, gravely injured. The only reason I'm still alive today is because I carry a gun. I believe that to my soul.

Consequently, if you think I would simply relinquish my firearms to satisfy some idiotic political agenda, _you're_ the one who's the nut, pal, not me...


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> There's not even the slightest chance that I would participate in a buy-back program. And, if you think I'm alone in that regard, you're out of your fuckin' mind. Buy-back programs don't work. In Seattle in 1992, a buy-back program collected 1,172 firearms.


In which case after the amnesty period you'd be in illegal possession of a firearm, subject to confiscation and prosecution.

Buy-back programs worked in Australia and New Zealand. Because they don't have a stupid 2nd Amendment, nor do they suffer the present insecurities and paranoia of the US. But you'd get over it...


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Consequently, if you think I would simply relinquish my firearms to satisfy some idiotic political agenda, _you're_ the one who's the nut, pal, not me...


Obviously, your and other gun nuts' illegal firearms would have to be confiscated if you won't obey the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> Suggesting that I am advocating that is an example of the straw man fallacy.


You don't understand what a straw man fallacy is. You want to keep America safe so you want to raid homes of people who are having suspicious activities around their homes.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> In which case after the amnesty period you'd be in illegal possession of a firearm, subject to confiscation and prosecution.



I'm perfectly fine with that. I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

Again, keep in mind that you're conversing with someone who would be dead had I not been armed with a legally carried concealed weapon.

Please, convince me that handing over my firearms is a good idea...



cnm said:


> Buy-back programs worked in Australia and New Zealand. Because they don't have a stupid 2 Amendment, nor do they suffer the present insecurities and paranoia of the US. But you'd get over it...



Again, you're talking to someone who would be dead had it not been for the 2nd Amendment. I don't see the 2nd Amendment as "stupid" at all. It's not a sense of "insecurity" and far more a sense of knowing that the police can't protect us. Even after shooting two people it took the St. Johns County Sheriff's Department over five minutes to reach the scene. If I was unarmed, what do you think our three assailants could've done to us in those five minutes?

Would you want your loved ones to be subjected to the whims of three violent assailants for five minutes? Your child perhaps? A parent? Or would you prefer they be in a position to defend themselves?

And, lastly, the fatal flaw of buy-back programs is that armed criminals don't really give a shit about the law. They're not going to suddenly grow a conscience and turn their illegal guns in, and more law-abiding citizens relinquishing their guns simply means fewer armed targets for criminals.

No, I will always be armed.

Always...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Obviously, your and other gun nuts' illegal firearms would have to be confiscated if you won't obey the law.



And how would they go about doing that?


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> And how would they go about doing that?


As soon as an illegal gun was sighted by LEO it would be confiscated.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> As soon as an illegal gun was sighted by LEO it would be confiscated.



Hey, Judge Wapner: That's why they call it "concealed carry".

See, I guess something you anti-gun idiots don't comprehend is that law-abiding gun owners, and especially those of us who carry a firearm every day, don't run around town flailing our guns around threatening to shoot people. With the exception of the range and subsequent cleaning, my primary firearm hasn't been out of its holster in years. And, when I carry it, no one knows.

If a LEO were to see my firearm, it's because I'm using it to protect myself, which is something he cannot, and many times will not, do...


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Please, convince me that handing over my firearms is a good idea...


C'mon. You've said you can't be convinced and you won't surrender or sell any illegal weapon. Obviously confiscation is the only way once the 2nd is repealed.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> If a LEO were to see my firearm, it's because I'm using it to protect myself, which is something he cannot, and many times will not, do...


Until he/she does, when it will be confiscated and most likely you prosecuted for possession of an illegal weapon.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> C'mon. You've said you can't be convinced and you won't surrender or sell any illegal weapon.



That's correct.

I would be dead right now if I wasn't armed and able to defend myself.

And you wish to take that right away from me?

Go fuck yourself...



cnm said:


> Obviously confiscation is the only way once the 2nd is repealed.



But if a law enforcement officer doesn't see it (and there's a snowball's chance in Hell one ever would), the gun remains with me.

How are you going to get that from me?

How are you going to get the millions of guns owned by people who feel exactly as I do?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Until he/she does, when it will be confiscated and most likely you prosecuted for possession of an illegal weapon.



Do you not comprehend the meaning of the word "concealed"?


----------



## Abatis (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> There is never a justification for violently resisting a democratic government.



Why did _you_ admit there was earlier?

Are the people forever at the mercy of government, no matter what it mutates into, with no remedy or recourse when government abandons the principles of its establishment?

You seek to deny *everything* this nation was founded upon and condemn us to subjugation and death.  You are arguing the Constitution is a suicide pact that only the citizenry is obligated to obey.

You have the entire compact backwards; when government exceeds the limited powers granted to it and rejects the principles it was established upon, it is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign that cannot claim the protection of the contract it violated.  That illegitimate government is then subject to the people's original, _never surrendered_, fully retained right of self-defense, to rescind and reclaim all the powers granted to government.  

If that depowering cannot be completed without violence, then violence is demanded, the means of which, _the right of the people to keep and *BEAR* arms_, was forever excepted out of the powers granted to government and secured to the people _BY THE PEOPLE_, in the Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> In which case after the amnesty period you'd be in illegal possession of a firearm, subject to confiscation and prosecution.
> 
> Buy-back programs worked in Australia and New Zealand. Because they don't have a stupid 2nd Amendment, nor do they suffer the present insecurities and paranoia of the US. But you'd get over it...


Get right on that constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> The fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in private hands is responsible for the large number of gun related crime and death. That is what I worry about, and not the possibility of a dictatorship in America. However, if a dictatorship does come to the United States, it will come from Trump and his minions, not from anyone or any group on the left.


Removing guns won't reduce crime and death while increasing the number of guns doesn't increase crime and death, we've seen that play out in other countries. Also, we've had guns readily available in this country ever since its founding and didn't have big problems with them until about the 1970's, certainly not mass shootings. Heck, we used to do target shooting in schools and no one even thought about killing someone. Why do you think that was? Guns are not the major factor, something else is.

Now, if you're afraid TRUMP! will bring about a dictatorship, why do you simultaneously want to disarm the populace? That tells me you're either not really worried about it, or you would rather have a dictatorship than allow other people to have guns.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> Sorry, I am not afraid of the government. I fear Trump, but not the government. Trump will never become the dictator of the United States because too many Americans like me hate him.


And if he is elected again, will your hate for him prevent him from establishing a dictatorship? How will you stop him if he sets one up and none of you have guns?


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> How are you going to get that from me?


As soon as you use your illegal firearm it will be confiscated and you prosecuted.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> repeal the 2nd


I admit that sort of thing would happen only in countries that value school children more than firearms.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> As soon as you use your illegal firearm it will be confiscated and you prosecuted.



And I'm 100% perfectly fine with that.

It's better than being dead...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I admit that sort of thing would happen only in countries that value school children more than firearms.


 A stupid comment made by an ignorant leftist.

My handgun has killed exactly one person: The person who was going to kill me.

How does taking my handgun away from me protect school children?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I admit that sort of thing would happen only in countries that value school children more than firearms.


Good to see you understand the facts do not support your position, so you must resort to fallacious appeals to emotion.


----------



## Rambunctious (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> Trump is ignorant and impulsive. In 2016 when a campaign aide tried to explain the Constitution to him his eyes glazed over with indifference and incomprehension. When he was asked to read part of the Constitution out loud he said it looked like a foreign language. COVID-19 shut us down because Trump responded too late.


Trump is not in office... how can you fear someone that can't raise your taxes or open the border to strangers getting baby's killed in the rio grande or spend our tax dollars like a drunken sailor or contribute to a war in Europe and dragging us out of a war and getting Marines killed....
Citizen Trump can't do any of that to you....
So pull the covers over your head snowflake and rest assured Trump can't hurt you.... unbelievable.... snowflakes still exist even after two years of Biden....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> There is never a justification for violently resisting a democratic government.


The British North Amercan colonists, in 1775, disagreed.
Were they wrong?


----------



## Rambunctious (Aug 25, 2022)

themirrorthief said:


> take away the governments guns first...then we will talk about it


Biden just hired 87,000 new armed soldiers....


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> How does taking my handgun away from me protect school children?


It reduces the number in circulation and therefore the ease with which children killers may obtain them.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Good to see you understand the facts do not support your position, so you must resort to fallacious appeals to emotion.


It is an often demonstrated fact that Americans love ease of access to firearms more than they love school children.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today. The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control. (I am paraphrasing Justice Stevens here).
> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Nothing in your post is true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I believe it to be an often demonstrated fact that Americans love ease of access to firearms more than they love school children.


OK then - demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> It reduces the number in circulation and therefore the ease with which children killers may obtain them.


Isn't it interesting that, for hundreds of years, we've had ready access to firearms in this country and we didn't have a problem with mass shooting in schools until about 50 years ago? Having guns available didn't change, so what did? Once we figure that one out, we can start addressing the root of the issue and not the symptoms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Why does anyone who supports the repeal of the 2nd think it will ever happen?
Do you understand your position necessarily admits the 2nd prevents the restrictions you seek - and as such, the 2nd is working is intended?


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You don't understand what a straw man fallacy is. You want to keep America safe so you want to raid homes of people who are having suspicious activities around their homes.


I want more controls on firearms. I do not want to outlaw fire arms. The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism that gets in the way of the strict gun control laws we need.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

I like the way school children's lives are a fallacious appeal to emotion. That shows real love...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I like the way school children's lives are a fallacious appeal to emotion. That shows real love...


Oh look.  -Another- fallacious appeal to emotion.
We accept your concession.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I want more controls on firearms. I do not want to outlaw fire arms. The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism that gets in the way of the strict gun control laws we need.


You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, the restrictions you seek.
Thus, the 2nd is working as intended.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I want more controls on firearms. I do not want to outlaw fire arms. The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism that gets in the way of the strict gun control laws we need.


LOL name a single law that controls criminals from getting using and possessing firearms.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> OK then - demonstrate this to be true.


From Columbine (sp) to the latest outrage Americans have had the chance to reduce the availability and ease of access to firearms, which in other countries has been shown to reduce the rate of mass killings. They have preferred ease of access to firearms every time.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh look. -Another- fallacious appeal to emotion.


See? School children's lives don't count against real appeals to emotion like easy access to firearms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> From Columbine (sp) to the latest outrage Americans have had the chance to reduce the availability and ease of access to firearms, which in other countries has been shown to reduce the rate of mass killings.


You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rates of gun related violence.
Thus, you have not demonstrated your claim that"that Americans love ease of access to firearms more than they love school children"  to be true.
Try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> See? School children's lives don't count against real appeals to emotion like easy access to firearms.


Oh look. -Another- fallacious appeal to emotion.        
We accept your concession.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I want more controls on firearms. I do not want to outlaw fire arms. The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism that gets in the way of the strict gun control laws we need.


Since it "gets in the way", it's functioning as intended.

I don't like to do this, but in this case I think it's warranted. Let's play a what-if game. Let's say that you got your wish and Quid Pro Joe managed to so severely restrict access to firearms that it just wasn't worth trying to get one and managed to remove all the firearms from society. Then TRUMP! gets elected, declares himself dictator for life and convinces the military to go along with him (all for the children, you know). Within a few months you see fully armed military personnel on every street corner, watching for signs of rebellion and shooting anyone who exhibits them.

What do you do? Go.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:
From Columbine (sp) to the latest outrage Americans have had the chance to reduce the availability and ease of access to firearms, which in other countries has been shown to reduce the rate of mass killings.


Simply a lie there is no evidence that less firearms equals less mass shootings. In Australia amd else where the rate has remained the same even with confiscation.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

No one needs a gun collection. To own a gun one should be required to register it with the Department of Justice. Along with the registration should be the results of a ballistics test. that way, if someone is shot with the gun, the police will know who to arrest. One should also be required to take a course in gun use and safety. 

Gun ownership should not be a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It should be a privilege granted reluctantly by the government.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> No one needs a gun collection. To own a gun one should be required to register it with the Department of Justice. Along with the registration should be the results of a ballistics test. that way, if someone is shot with the gun, the police will know who to arrest. One should also be required to take a course in gun use and safety.
> 
> Gun ownership should not be a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It should be a privilege granted reluctantly by the government.


Like I said hurry up and get that amendment passed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> No one needs a gun collection.


Your opinion doesn't matter.


Friends said:


> To own a gun one should be required to register it with the Department of Justice.


You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, this restriction.
So....
"No"
- US Constitution


Friends said:


> Along with the registration should be the results of a ballistics test.


You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, this restriction.
So....
"No"
- US Constitution


Friends said:


> that way, if someone is shot with the gun, the police will know who to arrest.


This is not at all true.


Friends said:


> One should also be required to take a course in gun use and safety.


You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, this restriction.
So....
"No"
- US Constitution


Friends said:


> Gun ownership should not be a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It should be a privilege granted reluctantly by the government.


Let us know when you repeal the 2nd -- until then, you opinion does not matter.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rates of gun related violence.


Mass shooting rates declined after relevant gun laws were enacted. What I cannot do is expect you to accept facts which undermine your position. 
No worries, I know you'll just deny.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I like the way school children's lives are a fallacious appeal to emotion. That shows real love...


Since firearms are not leaving this country any time soon and we're simply not going to deal with the underlying issues that cause people to shoot schoolchildren, what's your prescription for keeping kids safe at school? I mean, the safety of children is a powerful emotional appeal, but without any idea how to keep them safe, that's all it is, an appeal designed to shutdown an argument.

So, how are you going to keep them safe knowing that guns are not going away and we're not doing anything about what's causing people to kill them? Remember, we've had guns for centuries, but school kids were safe at school until just a handful of years ago. Something other than guns is going on.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh look. -Another- fallacious appeal to emotion.
> We accept your concession.


Not a real emotion like gun love, granted.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL name a single law that controls criminals from getting using and possessing firearms.


I am sure a few laws exist. I want more and stronger laws. The unauthorized ownership of a firearm should be a serious offense, punished severely.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Mass shooting rates declined after relevant gun laws were enacted.


This is a _post hoc _fallacy.
Thus, we're back to:
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rates of gun related violence.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Not a real emotion like gun love, granted.


Oh look. -Another- fallacious appeal to emotion.
We accept your concession.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I am sure a few laws exist. I want more and stronger laws. The unauthorized ownership of a firearm should be a serious offense, punished severely.


Let us know when you repeal the 2nd -- until then, you opinion does not matter.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Mass shooting rates declined after relevant gun laws were enacted. What I cannot do is expect you to accept facts which undermine your position.
> No worries, I know you'll just deny.


No they did not. that is a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I am sure a few laws exist. I want more and stronger laws. The unauthorized ownership of a firearm should be a serious offense, punished severely.


and yet YOUR side REFUSES to do that democratic prosecutors bargain away all firearm related charges and Judges in democratic strongholds refuse to sentence the criminals involved.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your opinion doesn't matter.
> 
> You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, this restriction.
> So....
> ...


Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

hadit said:


> I mean, the safety of children is a powerful emotional appeal, but without any idea how to keep them safe, that's all it is, an appeal designed to shutdown an argument.


Every other country can keep their school children safer. How to do it is quite obvious. That Americans don't want to do it by repealing the 2nd is nothing new. That Americans shut down an argument about keeping school children safe is also nothing new.
Here's a Texan's point of view...


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I am sure a few laws exist. I want more and stronger laws. The unauthorized ownership of a firearm should be a serious offense, punished severely.


WHO will be most effected by such laws, the people who already are prohibited from owning firearms, ala felons, or people who have never broken the law, never harmed anyone with their firearms, and take gun safety very seriously? I'm asking you, because I already know. Tell you what, how many laws do we need? We already have tens of thousands of them.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a _post hoc _fallacy.


Bullshit.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting.


Best you can do, eh?
Why do yoy think this will convince rational, reasoned people to agree with you?


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Every other country can keep their school children safer. How to do it is quite obvious. That Americans don't want to do it by repealing the 2nd is nothing new. That Americans shut down an argument about keeping school children safe is also nothing new.
> Here's a Texan's point of view...


We've had ready access to firearms for centuries. How long have schoolkids not been safe in school? It's not guns, it's something else. Removing guns is only dealing with the symptoms of what's going on. I'll put it this way, repealing the 2nd amendment would do nothing to prevent sick individuals from killing schoolchildren, the one demographic least able to defend themselves.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Bullshit.


You claimed that confiscation worked now post the proof from countries that did it. show the rate before and after.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Bullshit.


Ah.  You don't know what _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ means.
Your ignorance does not change the fact you argue a _post hoc_ fallacy.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

hadit said:


> Tell you what, how many laws do we need? We already have tens of thousands of them.


lol. It's not the number, it's the effect.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> lol. It's not the number, it's the effect.


and yet democrats refuse to use those laws bargaining away all firearm violations on every criminal.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah. You don't know what _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ means.
> Your ignorance does not change the fact you argue a _post hoc_ fallacy.


I know that your invincible ignorance on this matter is invincible by design.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> lol. It's not the number, it's the effect.


You cannot demonstrate any effect is necessarily related to any law, so...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I know that your invincible ignorance on this matter is invincible by design.


Your ignorance does not change the fact you argue a _post hoc_ fallacy.       
And thus, you have failed, yet again,  to demonstrate the necessary relationhsip you claimed.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> lol. It's not the number, it's the effect.


Do you really think more laws will somehow convince those determined to kill children to not do it?


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> and yet democrats refuse to use those laws bargaining away all firearm violations on every criminal.


Americans need to have laws that make firearms ownership a privilege not a right. So far, other people's school kids are a more than acceptable price to pay for that convenience.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Americans need to have laws that make firearms ownership a privilege not a right. So far, other people's school kids are a more than acceptable price to pay for that convenience.


Like I said get to work on that amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Americans need to have laws that make firearms ownership a privilege not a right.


You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


cnm said:


> So far, other people's school kids are a more than acceptable price to pay for that convenience.


You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot demonstrate any effect is necessarily related to any law, so...


You can deny any relationship you choose. Reality doesn't care.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Like I said get to work on that amendment.


No need. You've more than enough school kids.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> You can deny any relationship you choose. Reality doesn't care.


you have not presented any data to back ANY of your claims.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> You can deny any relationship you choose. Reality doesn't care.


Fact remains:
You cannot demonstrate any effect is necessarily related to any law.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> No need. You've more than enough school kids.


Oh look.  Another fallacious appeal to emotion.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

hadit said:


> Do you really think more laws will somehow convince those determined to kill children to not do it?


Other countries experiences show that fewer firearms in circulation means a lower firearms homicide rate and a reduced mass shooting rate.
Of course you'd need to repeal the 2nd to achieve that, but what need? You have sufficient population after all.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh look. Another fallacious appeal to emotion.


What? Are you saying you _don't_ have enough school kids?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Other countries experiences show that fewer firearms in circulation means a lower firearms homicide rate and a reduced mass shooting rate.
> Of course you'd need to repeal the 2nd to achieve that, but what need? You have sufficient population after all.


No they don't liar.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Other countries experiences show that fewer firearms in circulation means a lower firearms homicide rate and a reduced mass shooting rate.


You know cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rates of gun violence.
Thus, your statement, above, is a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> What? Are you saying you _don't_ have enough school kids?


Oh look. Another fallacious appeal to emotion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You know cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rates of gun violence.
> Thus, your statement, above, is a lie.


He is just lying since in Australia and Britian shootings are going up not down and after confiscation the rate never changed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He is just lying....


And trolling.
He has nothing, and he knows it.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You know cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rates of gun violence.
> Thus, your statement, above, is a lie.


I know you can and will deny anything, reality notwithstanding.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Other countries experiences show that fewer firearms in circulation means a lower firearms homicide rate and a reduced mass shooting rate.
> Of course you'd need to repeal the 2nd to achieve that, but what need? You have sufficient population after all.


Again, we've had ready access to guns for centuries and only recently have school shootings become a problem. What changed? Not access to guns. My point is, you can try to eliminate guns and face a likely civil war with a lot of death, or you can deal with what's causing people to want to kill kids. We're not even dealing with that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I know you can and will deny anything, reality notwithstanding.


Fact remains:
Your statement is a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I know you can and will deny anything, reality notwithstanding.


He doesn't have anything to deny you have NOT posted a single thing in support of ANY of your claims,


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He is just lying since in Australia and Britian shootings are going up not down and after confiscation the rate never changed.


Only those determined to deny everything could argue the rate and severity of mass shootings in the UK did not decrease after stricter laws were introduced.





						Category:Mass shootings in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Americans need to have laws that make firearms ownership a privilege not a right. So far, other people's school kids are a more than acceptable price to pay for that convenience.


We also accept tens of thousands of deaths on the highways every year as an acceptable price to pay for the privilege of driving fast. We accept the deaths of children slaving away in mines and environmental devastation for the privilege to feel good because we're driving an electric car. We accept the deaths of many for the privilege of wearing a pretty rock on our fingers. We always put a price tag on lives.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He doesn't have anything to deny you have NOT posted a single thing in support of ANY of your claims,


I have shown Americans prefer ease of access to firearms to the lives of other people's school children. That has been denied.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

hadit said:


> We also accept tens of thousands of deaths on the highways every year as an acceptable price to pay for the privilege of driving fast. We always put a price tag on lives.


Absolutely. We see the price you put on other people's school children. It's a bargain, eh?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Only those determined to deny everything...could argue the rate and severity of mass shootings in the UK did not decrease after stricter laws were introduced.


You are fully aware of the fact this does not prove the laws you cite caused the effect you claim.
This, you choose to lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> I have shown Americans prefer ease of access to firearms to the lives of other people's school children.


^^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No they don't liar.


Reality does not mind your denial.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Absolutely. We see the price you put on other people's school children. It's a bargain, eh?


Ok look - another fallacious appeal to emotion.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You are fully aware of the fact this does not prove the laws you cite caused the effect you claim.
> This, you choose to lie.


Yet it is the only variable altered. But deny away, it's what you do.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely. We see the price you put on other people's school children. It's a bargain, eh?
> ...


It's not a bargain? 

You're pretty happy with it, aren't you? I mean, you won't do what it takes to change it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Yet it is the only variable altered.


You cannot demonstrate this to be true - and even if it is, you cannot demonstrate cause.
You choose to lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> It's not a bargain?
> You're pretty happy with it, aren't you? I mean, you won't do what it takes to change it.


Ok look - another fallacious appeal to emotion.


----------



## cnm (Aug 25, 2022)

Anyway, enough bantering with psychopaths.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Hellbilly said:


> You’re talking about the United States Military. If they want your guns, they’ll take em. I don’t see what you are going to do about it.


Go after their families - starting with the officers, in decreasing order of rank.
And the political leaders who enacted the law.
Nothing you can do about it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Reality does not mind your denial.


Funny this list isnt the same as yours List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Anyway, enough bantering with psychopaths.


We accept your concession.
Let us know when you have something meaningful to add to the conversation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

Why Stop with Guns: England’s Mass Killing Problem
					

I’ve been to London a couple of times, and one of the most intriguing things I see every time I go, are the ISIS protests.  London seems to have one of these protests almost every day –…




					thedailylibertarian.com
				




so much for disarming Britain.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> Absolutely. We see the price you put on other people's school children. It's a bargain, eh?


What deaths do you accept for the privilege to live the way you do? And what do you think changed in the last 50 years that puts schoolkids at a slightly increased risk of dying while they're at school? Yes, it's a slightly increased risk, because the vast, vast majority of schoolkids never even see a shooter, much less get shot by one. We could clamp down on what we face today with just a few changes that don't involve infringing on inalienable rights: Access doors locked during school hours, non-students not allowed to wander the halls unescorted after entering, etc. Heck, have you tried to get in a court house carrying a gun lately?

There are a lot of retired veterans trained in security measures and how to handle firearms that would love to take a shift providing security for kids in schools.

And, finally, complaining about guns is complaining about the symptoms of the problem, not dealing with the actual problem. The problem is people who want to kill kids and other people, full stop. Taking away guns won't change that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

cnm said:


> In which case after the amnesty period you'd be in illegal possession of a firearm, subject to confiscation and prosecution.
> 
> Buy-back programs worked in Australia and New Zealand. Because they don't have a stupid 2 Amendment, nor do they suffer the present insecurities and paranoia of the US. But you'd get over it...


No he wouldn't. Buy back programs don't work Australia has more guns now than they had before the buy back


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

hadit said:


> Isn't it interesting that, for hundreds of years, we've had ready access to firearms in this country and we didn't have a problem with mass shooting in schools until about 50 years ago? Having guns available didn't change, so what did? Once we figure that one out, we can start addressing the root of the issue and not the symptoms.


When the leftists got a foothold in our Government


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I want more controls on firearms. I do not want to outlaw fire arms. The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism that gets in the way of the strict gun control laws we need.


You can want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled first. The second amendment is a directive to the government that it cannot infringe on the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I like the government. I want a large, powerful, expensive government paid for by high taxes on the rich, a government that is receptive to the majority will, and which crushes those who resist violently. The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court interfere with that. Consequently, I want the Second Amendment to be repealed, and I want the Supreme Court to be substantially weakened.
> 
> I want tax evasion and the ownership of an unregistered gun to be punished severely.


I want the government to do a search of your home without any probable cause and without a warrant.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You can want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled first. The second amendment is a directive to the government that it cannot infringe on the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms.


I trust the government. I do not trust a bunch of gun loving goons.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No he wouldn't. Buy back programs don't work Australia has more guns now than they had before the buy back


I am in favor of confiscation without compensation for those who do not match strict restrictions on gun ownership.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I am in favor of confiscation without compensation for those who do not match strict restrictions on gun ownership.


Too bad about the constitution, eh?   You'll need to repeal both the 2nd and 7th Amendmnets to get this one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I trust the government.


So long as Republicans aren't in charge.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> So long as Republicans aren't in charge.


The United States is moving slowly to the left. If it had not been for the Electoral College, which I oppose, Hillary Clinton would have been elected president in 2016. I have always liked the Clinton's. 

Republicans rely in gerrymandering because they know that the blue tide is rising.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I trust the government. I do not trust a bunch of gun loving goons.


Seriously now, how can anyone in their right mind say with a straight keyboard that they literally "trust the government"? SMH


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"


And in civilized countries people would reply, "Because they want to, and it's nunya business why".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"


^^^
Mindless self-serving propaganda, offered in stead of a rational, reasoned argument.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> The United States is moving slowly to the left...


And so, yes, you do "trust the government", so long as the Republicans aren't in charge.
Thank you.


----------



## toobfreak (Aug 25, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> In the March 27, 2018 issue of the New York Times,


The Bible of far left progressive rags.  Good source.  



Ms. Turquoise said:


> retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a wonderful article advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Reason: We do not need a militia today.


EVERY culture which has disarmed itself or been disarmed has lived to regret it.  The 2A is about far more than militias.



Ms. Turquoise said:


> The 2nd Amendment is just a propaganda weapon of the NRA---


Idiot talking out of your ass.



Ms. Turquoise said:


> they use it to block debate in Congress and stop real gun control.


The claim of an ignorant fool.



Ms. Turquoise said:


> These mass shootings would stop fast if we could repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Then why do they all happen in gun free zones?  Why is it that crime is always inversely proportional to gun control laws?  DC, Chicago, NYC, tough gun laws/super high crime.  But wherever guns are encouraged, crime is low.  Huh.  How about that!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I trust the government. I do not trust a bunch of gun loving goons.


I don't trust you or the government.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

hadit said:


> Seriously now, how can anyone in their right mind say with a straight keyboard that they literally "trust the government"? SMH


I just did.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I want the government to do a search of your home without any probable cause and without a warrant.


I have nothing to hide from the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I have nothing to hide from the government.


Unless the Republicans are in charge.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Why Stop with Guns: England’s Mass Killing Problem
> 
> 
> I’ve been to London a couple of times, and one of the most intriguing things I see every time I go, are the ISIS protests.  London seems to have one of these protests almost every day –…
> ...


The United Kingdom has a yearly murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants of 1.2. In the United States it is 6.3.









						List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> The United Kingdom has a yearly murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants of 1.2. In the United States it is 6.3.


Why is that?
Demonstrate your response to be true.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I just did.


Did you trust the government when TRUMP! was president and Republicans controlled Congress?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> I have nothing to hide from the government.


I'm sure you believe that. You better hope all your records are up to date.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

hadit said:


> Did you trust the government when TRUMP! was president and Republicans controlled Congress?


It was in the resist movement.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It was in the resist movement.


It should be interesting to hear what he/she/it has to say.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

hadit said:


> It should be interesting to hear what he/she/it has to say.


We already know.


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why is that?
> Demonstrate your response to be true.


Fewer guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> Fewer guns.


You - intentionally, I am sure -  forgot this part:
_Demonstrate your response to be true.     _


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> The United Kingdom has a yearly murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants of 1.2. In the United States it is 6.3.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_


http://


Friends said:


> Fewer guns.


Not fewer in criminals hands and no ban will keep firearms out of the Country so all that happens is citizens are defenseless while criminals are not and emboldened.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Not fewer in criminals hands and no ban will keep firearms out of the Country so all that happens is citizens are defenseless while criminals are not and emboldened.


Working as intended.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"


I'm UK conservative and there's no problem owning a gun, as long as the person was checked as suitable (police check, driving licence check, medical check, referees check, valid reason/need to own one). Also, the model/features of the gun are suitable for society and they're locked away in a secure cabinet when not in use. And illegal to carry guns in a public place, unless unloaded in a gun case/bag to go to the gun shop or gun range.

Basically, just follow those guns regulations currently in practice in civilised countries with low gun stats.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> Fewer guns.


Poor little precious thinks their will be less guns








						Australia: More Guns Now Than Before Port Arthur - The Australia Institute
					

New research from the Australia Institute finds that there are more guns in Australia now than there were before the Port Arthur massacre and introduction of strict gun controls. The Australia Institute report, commissioned by Gun Control Australia, comes off the back of research which finds the...




					australiainstitute.org.au


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why is that?
> Demonstrate your response to be true.


The UK has a low murder rate because there are not so many gun loving goons over there.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> The UK has a low murder rate because there are not so many gun loving goons over there.


wrong they just dont murder as much but that is increasing. as to crime the UK is much higher then the US









						United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
					

Total crimes, Crime levels, Murder rate per million people, Intentional homicide rate, Murder rate and 62 More Interesting Facts and Stats



					www.nationmaster.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 25, 2022)

As for their murder rate read this...









						An Official Journal Of The NRA | How The UK Covers Up Murder Stats
					

A lesson on what UK crime statistics do and don’t say about the effectiveness of gun bans.




					www.americas1stfreedom.org


----------



## Friends (Aug 25, 2022)

AP-NORC poll: Most in US say they want stricter gun laws​By SARA BURNETTAugust 23, 2022

CHICAGO (AP) — Most U.S. adults want to see gun laws made stricter and think gun violence is increasing nationwide, according to a new poll that finds broad public support for a variety of gun restrictions, including many that are supported by majorities of Republicans and gun owners.

The poll by the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 71% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter, including about half of Republicans, the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of those in gun-owning households.









						AP-NORC poll: Most in US say they want stricter gun laws
					

CHICAGO (AP) — Most U.S. adults want to see gun laws  made stricter and think gun violence  is increasing nationwide, according to a new poll that finds broad public support for a variety of gun restrictions, including many that are supported by majorities of Republicans and gun owners.




					apnews.com


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> The UK has a low murder rate because there are not so many gun loving goons over there.


Demonstrate your ckaim to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2022)

Friends said:


> AP-NORC poll: Most in US say they want stricter gun laws​


Fallacy:  _Argumentum ad populum_
(That's how an educated person asks "so?")


----------



## Friends (Aug 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Demonstrate your ckaim to be true.


Few guns = few murders

That should be easy for even a gun loving goon to understand.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2022)

Friends said:


> Few guns = few murders



You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
Disagree?
If more guns = more murders, how then did the number of guns in the US, 1993-2017 increased by ~25%,  while the numbe of gun related murders fell 55%?


----------



## Friends (Aug 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
> Disagree?
> If more guns = more murders, how then did the number of guns in the US, 1993-2017 increased by ~25%,  while the numbe of gun related murders fell 55%?


The prison population grew. Also, the high rate of abortion meant that many potential criminals were aborted,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2022)

Friends said:


> The prison population grew. Also, the high rate of abortion meant that many potential criminals were aborted,


In other words:
More guns does not necessitate more gun-realted violence.
This also means
Fewer guns does not necessitate less gun-related violence.

So much for that. eh?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 27, 2022)

cnm said:


> It reduces the number in circulation and therefore the ease with which children killers may obtain them.



That's hilarious.

My guns aren't "in circulation", and there's a snowball's chance in Hell that a child killer would ever get a hold of them.

But, since you brought up killing: Had I not been armed, trained and willing to use deadly force, I would be dead right now. Your position essentially says that it would be better that I be dead than have a gun.

Is that your position?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 27, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That's hilarious.
> 
> My guns aren't "in circulation", and there's a snowball's chance in Hell that a child killer would ever get a hold of them.
> 
> ...


Yes.
Their fear about what you might do even without any evidence whatsoever that it is justified means that they can erase a constitutionally held right without cause.

That really is the position.  And reasoning with that position is essentially pointless.  A valid argument will never be made.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 28, 2022)

FA_Q2 said:


> Yes.
> Their fear about what you might do even without any evidence whatsoever that it is justified means that they can erase a constitutionally held right without cause.
> 
> That really is the position.  And reasoning with that position is essentially pointless.  A valid argument will never be made.



Anyone who holds that opinion is a piece of shit...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 29, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Anyone who holds that opinion is a piece of shit...


I cannot go that far only because it seems that the majority if the electorate does have that opinion.  It is all over both political parties and their goals.  It is the ugly side of democracy.


----------

