# Uvalde shooter legally bought his guns............



## ABikerSailor (Jun 5, 2022)

Dunno what to think about this.  Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo.  Do we need to change the gun laws?  I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.

Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns?  Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.

Sorry, but as long as we have guns legally available for purchase, there will continue to be people who slip through the cracks and commit these kinds of atrocious acts.









						Uvalde gunman legally bought AR rifles days before shooting, law enforcement says
					

He brought only one of the rifles with him into the elementary school, according to the briefing. The other was left in a truck he crashed nearby.




					www.texastribune.org
				




*The gunman in the deadliest school shooting in Texas history bought two AR-style rifles legally just after his 18th birthday — days before his assault on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

UPDATED: MAY 25, 2022
He legally purchased two AR platform rifles from a federally licensed gun store on two days: May 17 — just a day after his birthday — and May 20, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said, according to a briefing that state Sen. John Whitmire, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, received from state authorities late Tuesday. The gunman bought 375 rounds of 5.56-caliber ammunition on May 18.

In Texas, **you must be at least 18 years old to buy a rifle, and the state does not require a license to openly carry one in public.*


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2022)

The question to ask is where he got 3000 dollars for the rifles?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 5, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The question to ask is where he got 3000 dollars for the rifles?



Dunno, because apparently he bought them on credit, which was offered by the gun store where he bought the guns.  And, you know as well as I do that credit companies like to give lots of credit to kids who are just starting out.









						The gunmaker whose rifle was used in Uvalde shooting reportedly runs direct-to-consumer ads aimed at younger buyers
					

The Georgia gunmaker Daniel Defense offers buy now, pay later, so the cost of buying its guns can be spread over several payment periods.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




*The gunmaker that made the rifle used in the Texas elementary-school shooting uses online direct-to-consumer advertising tactics to attract young buyers, according to The New York Times.

Daniel Defense also runs ads modeled after the popular video game "Call of Duty,"most  likely also aimed to appeal to a younger audience, per the Times. The Uvalde shooter is said to have bought the rifle used in the attack days after his 18th birthday.

The Times reported how Daniel Defense also runs a buy-now, pay-later payment plan, which is advertised on the home page of its website.

The financing program allows buyers to spread out the cost of an assault-style rifle, some models of which retail for more than $1,800, over numerous pay periods in "three easy steps."


The plan is in partnership with Credova, a buy-now, pay-later company, according to Daniel Defense's website.

The Uvalde shooter reportedly bought a military-style rifle online from Daniel Defense a week before the massacre which left 19 children and two adults dead on May 24.*


Maybe make it harder to buy guns on credit?  Dunno what the solution is here.  And, people who do mass shootings aren't expecting to come out of it alive, so buying weapons on credit really isn't a concern, as they expect to die and don't need to worry about paying for them.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 5, 2022)

How does a teenager with no visible means of income get credit?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 5, 2022)

Oddball said:


> How does a teenager with no visible means of income get credit?



Dunno how that works, but I do know that a lot of credit companies operate on a regular basis on college campuses to entice students to get credit.  And, those students are people with no visible means of income (they are going to school, not to jobs) and are already incurring a mountain of debt by attending college.  Might wanna talk to the credit companies about that one.   And, the gun store where he bought the guns had a credit program that offered very attractive terms.  Since the gunman didn't expect to come out alive, paying for them later wasn't much of an issue to him.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno, because apparently he bought them on credit, which was offered by the gun store where he bought the guns.  And, you know as well as I do that credit companies like to give lots of credit to kids who are just starting out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh.....so a kid with no credit history was able to qualify for credit on $4000 worth of guns? Is that the latest excuse?
Where did he get the money for 1600 rounds of ammo and thousands of dollars in tactical gear?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno how that works, but I do know that a lot of credit companies operate on a regular basis on college campuses to entice students to get credit.  And, those students are people with no visible means of income (they are going to school, not to jobs) and are already incurring a mountain of debt by attending college.  Might wanna talk to the credit companies about that one.   And, the gun store where he bought the guns had a credit program that offered very attractive terms.  Since the gunman didn't expect to come out alive, paying for them later wasn't much of an issue to him.


He's obviously not college material, so that dog don't hunt......It's even less likely that any retail credit program would extend to such  an individual.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2022)

Oddball said:


> He's obviously not college material, so that dog don't hunt......It's even less likely that any retail credit program would extend to such  an individual.


He was also driving a late model pickup truck that likely cost $35,000


----------



## Oddball (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> He was also driving a late model pickup truck that likely cost $35,000


And he has no DL, which raises the question of how he passed a background check at a retail firearms outlet.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

Oddball said:


> How does a teenager with no visible means of income get credit?


.

Go to the University Center at any local College Campus and speak to any number of venders available who get their commissions off policies sold,
with the corporate assumption that the person wouldn't be there if they couldn't earn money when necessary, 
or their parents were footing the bill or would bail them out in a bind.

.​


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2022)

Oddball said:


> And he has no DL, which raises the question of how he passed a background check at a retail firearms outlet.


That's really suspicious as a valid DL is proof of residency / address for form 4473


----------



## EvMetro (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry, but as long as we have guns legally available for purchase, there will continue to be people who slip through the cracks and commit these kinds of atrocious acts.


Blocking the "legal" sales of guns is not the same as blocking black market sales of guns.  If anything, disrupting legal sales would boost blackmarket sales.  Criminals and killers are certainly not limited to "legal" purchases of guns when they can get anything they want on the blackmarket , so interfering with legal sales only interferes with the sales of guns through government approved channels.  It interferes with the sales of self defense and hunting guns while boosting the sales of blackmarket guns to criminals.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 5, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The question to ask is where he got 3000 dollars for the rifles?


Wrong question. You should be asking why America has a stupid Amendment on guns.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wrong question. You should be asking why America has a stupid Amendment on guns.


You might want to open a history book and see what the Founding Fathers understood about authoritarian governments.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

Oddball said:


> And he has no DL, which raises the question of how he passed a background check at a retail firearms outlet.


.

Many States, especially those that require a photo ID for voting, offer free State issued ID's that carry the same weight
as a driver's license absent driving privileges.

I am not saying that is case in this circumstance, but it could be.
The absence of a driver's license, should that be the case, also didn't keep him from driving to the school.

.​


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 5, 2022)

mudwhistle said:


> Oh.....so a kid with no credit history was able to qualify for credit on $4000 worth of guns? Is that the latest excuse?
> Where did he get the money for 1600 rounds of ammo and thousands of dollars in tactical gear?





Oddball said:


> He's obviously not college material, so that dog don't hunt......It's even less likely that any retail credit program would extend to such  an individual.





Oddball said:


> And he has no DL, which raises the question of how he passed a background check at a retail firearms outlet.



You know, those are all good questions, and I'd like to know the answers to them myself.  Doesn't change the fact that the kid was able to buy the guns legally and on credit.  The first places you might want to go to for answers is 1) the gun shop that sold him the guns.  Did they cut corners just to make a sale?  And 2) the credit company that approved the purchase in the first place.  The kid bought those guns legally, as he waited until after his 18th birthday to get them, and apparently, the gun shop that sold them to him didn't see any red flags.  And, because of the greed of credit companies, they didn't see a problem in approving the sale on credit, they just wanted to make money, and figured he was an okay risk, otherwise they wouldn't have approved him for the credit.

Makes me ask another question though, should gun shops be allowed to sell guns on credit?  I know that buying a car on credit is a pretty intense process and they look at you with a microscope to make sure that you can pay, even more so when it comes to buying a home.   So what is the process when it comes to buying guns on credit?


----------



## Esdraelon (Jun 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wrong question. You should be asking why America has a stupid Amendment on guns.


How many dead Americans would you overlook if they were resisting the government trying to take their weapons?  Would their deaths matter to you at all or would the end justify the means?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, those are all good questions, and I'd like to know the answers to them myself.  Doesn't change the fact that the kid was able to buy the guns legally and on credit.  The first places you might want to go to for answers is 1) the gun shop that sold him the guns.  Did they cut corners just to make a sale?  And 2) the credit company that approved the purchase in the first place.  The kid bought those guns legally, as he waited until after his 18th birthday to get them, and apparently, the gun shop that sold them to him didn't see any red flags.  And, because of the greed of credit companies, they didn't see a problem in approving the sale on credit, they just wanted to make money, and figured he was an okay risk, otherwise they wouldn't have approved him for the credit.
> 
> Makes me ask another question though, should gun shops be allowed to sell guns on credit?  I know that buying a car on credit is a pretty intense process and they look at you with a microscope to make sure that you can pay, even more so when it comes to buying a home.   So what is the process when it comes to buying guns on credit?


That kid didn't buy them. They were delivered to him. 
If he had bought them the left would be going after the gunshop owner who sold them to him.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2022)

In States that require proof of insurance you can not buy with out insurance further unless Texas has some dumb laws one has to show a valid drivers license to buy a vehicle from a dealer.


----------



## ColonelAngus (Jun 5, 2022)

You gotta love coward cops threatening a mom who ran into the school and saved her kids.

The Uvalde police are cowardly faggots.









						Uvalde mother who ran into school threatened by police
					

Gomez reach out to a local judge who assured her she couldn't be charged with a probation violation, or with obstruction of justice for doing media interviews.




					thepostmillennial.com
				



Its interesting that certain mods will whine that there are other threads on a subject, but they do not include a link to those threads when they lock.

Seems lazy.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wrong question. You should be asking why America has a stupid Amendment on guns.


Why do Brits still allow themselves to be ruled by a monarch?

Now THAT is fucking stupid


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You might want to open a history book and see what the Founding Fathers understood about authoritarian governments.


You're talking to a guy who masturbates to his picture of the queen


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 5, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> How many dead Americans would you overlook if they were resisting the government trying to take their weapons?  Would their deaths matter to you at all or would the end justify the means?


That's a fallacy in your head and you need treatment for that condition.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 5, 2022)

mudwhistle said:


> That kid didn't buy them. They were delivered to him.
> If he had bought them the left would be going after the gunshop owner who sold them to him.



You know, it would really help your points if you actually read what was going on and knew the facts (if necessary, you can read the links people put in their posts) before spewing bullshit.  NO, he didn't have them delivered, he bought them at a gun shop.  I posted the link in my OP if you had bothered to read.  Here is a bit from the link in my OP, and yes, they were bought at the shop, not delivered.

*The gunman in the deadliest school shooting in Texas history bought two AR-style rifles legally just after his 18th birthday — days before his assault on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

UPDATED: MAY 25, 2022
He legally purchased two AR platform rifles from a federally licensed gun store on two days: May 17 — just a day after his birthday — and May 20, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said, according to a briefing that state Sen. John Whitmire, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, received from state authorities late Tuesday. The gunman bought 375 rounds of 5.56-caliber ammunition on May 18.*

And, interestingly enough, the gunmaker who made the guns he purchased IS being investigated.  Seems that Daniel Defense has a history of marketing guns to young people...............



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/04/uvalde-shooting-lawsuits-daniel-defense-marketing/
		


Additionally, the gun store where he bought the guns has a history of selling ammo to smugglers and the cartels...........









						Uvalde gun store had a history of selling ammunition to smugglers
					

District 19 Texas State Senator, Roland Gutierrez told New York Times, that law enforcement informed him Oasis Outback is where the Uvalde killer bought the guns that would kill 19 4th graders and two teachers.




					www.kxxv.com
				




*UVALDE, Texas — District 19 Texas State Senator, Roland Gutierrez, told the New York Times, that law enforcement informed him Oasis Outback is where the Uvalde killer bought the guns that would kill 19 4th graders and two teachers.

The store has had a history of selling ammunition to smugglers according to a 2011 press release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Fred Farhat plead guilty to helping smuggle 10,000 rounds of .223 and 5.56 x 45 mm ammunition into Mexico.*

So yeah, he did buy the guns at a gun store, and now both the gun maker and the gun store owners are being investigated.  Wanna change your claim that the guns were delivered to him?  Because they weren't, they were bought at a gun shop LEGALLY after he'd turned 18, and they were bought on credit.  Try again, but this time, try to get the facts correct before you make yourself look like an idiot again.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno what to think about this.  Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo.  Do we need to change the gun laws?  I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.
> 
> Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns?  Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.
> 
> ...


True.

And bans and restrictions simply don’t work; there’s no need for more government excess and overreach.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Maybe make it harder to buy guns on credit?


Private lending institutions are at liberty to make that determination; but this shouldn’t be subject to government regulation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wrong question. You should be asking why America has a stupid Amendment on guns.


There’s nothing ‘stupid’ about the Second Amendment; its caselaw determines how government may – or may not – regulate firearms.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jun 8, 2022)

Oddball said:


> And he has no DL, which raises the question of how he passed a background check at a retail firearms outlet.


Any legal govt or state issued photo ID will satisfy a NICS check. Military ID,  DL, Concealed carry ID... goes on and on. A state issued ID like for people can't get a driverlicense is as good as a DL. They are just looking for a photo, name, addy and dob on it.

A person CANNOT be ineligible to own a firearm if they don't drive, think about it. 





__





						What form of identification must a licensee obtain from a transferee of a firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
					

The identification document presented by the transferee must have a photograph of the transferee, as well as the transferee’s name, residence address, and date of birth. The identification document must also be valid (e.g., unexpired) and have been issued by a governmental entity for the purpose...




					www.atf.gov
				




_What form of identification must a licensee obtain from a transferee of a firearm?_​_The identification document presented by the transferee *must have a photograph of the transferee, as well as the transferee’s name, residence address, and date of birth.* The identification document must also be valid (e.g., unexpired) and have been issued by a governmental entity for the purpose of identification of individuals. An example of an acceptable identification document is a current driver’s license._

("governmental entity" it's both state or fed)


----------



## Oddball (Jun 8, 2022)

Shawnee_b said:


> Any legal govt or state issued photo ID will satisfy a NICS check. Military ID,  DL, Concealed carry ID... goes on and on. A state issued ID like for people can't get a driverlicense is as good as a DL. They are just looking for a photo, name, addy and dob on it.
> 
> A person CANNOT be ineligible to own a firearm if they don't drive, think about it.
> 
> ...


Splitting hairs.....He didn't have  DL, yet still had access to a pickup truck....A bazillion gun laws wouldn't have stopped this monster.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 9, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno what to think about this.  Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo.  Do we need to change the gun laws?  I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.
> 
> Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns?  Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.
> 
> ...


Gun control does not work. 

Solution 

Repeal all gun laws and make attempts at getting gun control a capital offense, punishable by prolonged crucifixion.

Problem solved.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 11, 2022)

ColonelAngus said:


> The Uvalde police are cowardly faggots.


Texas finest.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 11, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Splitting hairs.....He didn't have  DL, yet still had access to a pickup truck....A bazillion gun laws wouldn't have stopped this monster.


The right laws would. It’s obvious other countries in the free world don’t make it this easy to kill children


----------



## Coyote (Jun 11, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno what to think about this.  Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo.  Do we need to change the gun laws?  I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.
> 
> Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns?  Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.
> 
> ...


You can’t buy alcohol until you are 21 .
You can’t buy cigarettes until you are 21.

But you can buy a gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 11, 2022)

Coyote said:


> You can’t buy alcohol until you are 21 .
> You can’t buy cigarettes until you are 21.
> 
> But you can buy a gun.




Cool.....so we say you can't have an abortion till you are 21 too......right?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 12, 2022)




----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Cool.....so we say you can't have an abortion till you are 21 too......right?


Guns are a medical procedure now?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Guns are a medical procedure now?




Nope, but the decision for that procedure can't be left to anyone not responsible enough to drink, vote, or own and carry a gun....right?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 12, 2022)

A Piss test ( for Drugs including SSRIs ) with his 4473 Form woulda kicked back both purchases


----------



## EvMetro (Jun 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You should be asking why America has a stupid Amendment on guns.


When I ask lefties why they hate the constitution, they usually deny their hatred of it.  They deny wanting to dismantle it.  I'm glad to see a lefty who is honest enough to post his resentment of it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Guns are a medical procedure now?


Adulthood just went up to 21  You can't have the abortion without consent by an adult.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 12, 2022)

Failzero said:


> A Piss test ( for Drugs including SSRIs ) with his 4473 Form woulda kicked back both purchases


Good point.  Now the leftist are going to come after you for saying we should drug screen them.  They have made hardcore drugs legal in some states.......Hell they are on water hours in Cali and still water the plants.............Mary J need the water.......but we will fine you for watering your lawn.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 12, 2022)

EvMetro said:


> When I ask lefties why they hate the constitution, they usually deny their hatred of it.  They deny wanting to dismantle it.  I'm glad to see a lefty who is honest enough to post his resentment of it.


I've owned and used guns. I'm British and the 2nd Amendment is outdated.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I've owned and used guns. I'm British and the 2nd Amendment is outdated.




The Germans and the Europeans thought that too.....15 million dead, innocent men, women and children, murdered by the very governments that told them....give us your guns and we will keep you safe........and they still haven't learned why people need guns...


----------



## EvMetro (Jun 12, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> So what is the process when it comes to buying guns on credit?


Not sure if visa or Mastercard actually care or verify what is being financed.  You can probably buy guns, drugs, and whores on credit if they have credit card machines.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I've owned and used guns. I'm British and the 2nd Amendment is





Captain Caveman said:


> I've owned and used guns. I'm British and the 2nd Amendment is outdated.


My 1961 BSA L1A1 ( SLR ) is the flagship of my Firearms collection


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The Germans and the Europeans thought that too.....15 million dead, innocent men, women and children, murdered by the very governments that told them....give us your guns and we will keep you safe........and they still haven't learned why people need guns...


The world wars weren't over guns. Is your knowledge of history  t h a t  bad?? Jesus Christ.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The world wars weren't over guns. Is your knowledge of history  t h a t  bad?? Jesus Christ.


Japan Eschewed invading The West Coast of America because of how Armed the Populace was .


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 12, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Japan Eschewed invading The West Coast of America because of how Armed the Populace was .


So the world wars kicked off because Austria and Germany were upset about guns??


----------



## Failzero (Jun 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So the world wars kicked off because Austria and Germany were upset about guns??


No Because 900k Poles & Checs  were or Considered themselves German


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So the world wars kicked off because Austria and Germany were upset about guns??


He did not claim they were dumbass. But the holocaust happened and before it got going Germany disarmed the Jews.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So the world wars kicked off because Austria and Germany were upset about guns??




Who said that?

You are a moron.

In the 1920s the governments of Europe took guns away from their people.....using the same arguments we see today....stop gun violence, make people safer, they didn't need them...and the best one?   The government is here to protect you so you don't need guns......

In the 1930s, when the socialists took power, they used the gun registration lists created in the 1920s to confiscate the remaining legal guns......then, by 1935 they began to mass murder Jews and their political enemies.....

The only country that wasn't invaded by the German Socialists was Switzerland......because they had guns in the hands of civilians....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He did not claim they were dumbass. But the holocaust happened and before it got going Germany disarmed the Jews.




And the other people they planned to murder.....

The blm/antifa........errrrr.... I mean the socialist brown shirts, beat and murdered political opposition.....opposition that had been disarmed........which allowed the socialists to gain strength and power.....


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope, but the decision for that procedure can't be left to anyone not responsible enough to drink, vote, or own and carry a gun....right?


Do ypu feel that way about cosmetic surgery?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Do ypu feel that way about cosmetic surgery?




Yep........tattoos too.........right?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yep........tattoos too.........right?


Tatoos, nose jobs, etc?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Tatoos, nose jobs, etc?




Yep......you guys want this....you have to live with it.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jun 12, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Splitting hairs.....He didn't have  DL, yet still had access to a pickup truck....A bazillion gun laws wouldn't have stopped this monster.


Gun laws don't work at all and "they" know it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Tatoos, nose jobs, etc?


Military service as well. how can we deny the right to own firearms while allowing them to serve WITH firearms?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Military service as well. how can we deny the right to own firearms while allowing them to serve WITH firearms?


Yet we deny them the right to smoke and drink as well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Yet we deny them the right to smoke and drink as well.


not once in the military


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 12, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Gun control does not work.
> 
> Solution
> 
> ...


Congrats. You’ve just shown your indirect support of more school killings.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 12, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, it would really help your points if you actually read what was going on and knew the facts (if necessary, you can read the links people put in their posts) before spewing bullshit.  NO, he didn't have them delivered, he bought them at a gun shop.  I posted the link in my OP if you had bothered to read.  Here is a bit from the link in my OP, and yes, they were bought at the shop, not delivered.
> 
> *The gunman in the deadliest school shooting in Texas history bought two AR-style rifles legally just after his 18th birthday — days before his assault on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.
> 
> ...


This is Texas which helps supply firearms and ammo to drive up the crime in Mexico……and Canada  by way of northern states.  It’s seems, there is no federal law on the books keeping gun dealers from doin* a lot of things, just like there is no federal law requiring  a private sale buyer having a BC. When it comes to guns,  we’ll sell them to any breathing humanoid.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> This is Texas which helps supply firearms and ammo to drive up the crime in Mexico……and Canada  by way of northern states.  It’s seems, there is no federal law on the books keeping gun dealers from doin* a lot of things, just like there is no federal law requiring  a private sale buyer having a BC. When it comes to guns,  we’ll sell them to any breathing humanoid.



You're right, they do supply firearms and ammo to help drive up the crime..........................









						Uvalde gun store had a history of selling ammunition to smugglers
					

District 19 Texas State Senator, Roland Gutierrez told New York Times, that law enforcement informed him Oasis Outback is where the Uvalde killer bought the guns that would kill 19 4th graders and two teachers.




					www.kxxv.com
				




*The store has had a history of selling ammunition to smugglers according to a 2011 press release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Fred Farhat plead guilty to helping smuggle 10,000 rounds of .223 and 5.56 x 45 mm ammunition into Mexico.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 12, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno what to think about this.  Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo.  Do we need to change the gun laws?



I have been assured by all the staunch 2A defenders that laws don't work.   Evildoers are going to break laws no matter what.  When laws fail the only thing left is to arm all Americans and let them dish out their own "justice".



ABikerSailor said:


> Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns?  Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.



Another idea that keeps getting shot down is the idea that gun purchasers (even the good guys) should pay a surcharge to help improve mental healthcare in the US.  The reason they don't like that is because it requires them to think about their hobby in a broader format than just themselves and it would then remove the ability to scapegoat the "mentally ill" whenever there's another mass shooting so that no one thinks about the GUNS.

I personally think we are where we are supposed to be.  We are a nation that values this right above all others and we value the interpretation that provides the most guns to the most people.  The side-effect is that we have more gun homicides and more mass shootings of innocents than any other nation in a similar economic bracket.  We are "OK" with a couple dozen little kids getting killed every few years.  There's literally nothing we can do to stop it.

It IS what America is.  It is how we define ourselves.  WE ARE THE GUN.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> not once in the military






			https://www.army.mil/article/245349/underage_drinking_poses_heightened_risk_for_community
		

Soldiers charged with underage drinking under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, can face punishment depending on the crime’s severity or frequency. In the most severe cases that could mean being court-martialed or removed from the Army.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 12, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> You're right, they do supply firearms and ammo to help drive up the crime..........................
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yup, and it goes deeper. 
The AFT is understaffed and can’t get a director that doesn‘t pass the muster of the gun groups they are suppose to monitor. This is a long term problem and the money from the NRA is toxic….because gun makers in other countries filter sums of money through the PAC of the NRA.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> https://www.army.mil/article/245349/underage_drinking_poses_heightened_risk_for_community
> 
> 
> Soldiers charged with underage drinking under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, can face punishment depending on the crime’s severity or frequency. In the most severe cases that could mean being court-martialed or removed from the Army.


Underaged soldiers carry and use firearms only under the strictest supervision.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Underaged soldiers carry and use firearms only under the strictest supervision.


LOL ever been on the military?  one sgt for 12 soldiers


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Yet we deny them the right to smoke and drink as well.


smoking and drinking are not a right dumbass.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The question to ask is where he got 3000 dollars for the rifles?


More like 4000.00 and he paid cash.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> smoking and drinking are not a right dumbass.


Just as Abortion is not also


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 12, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno, because apparently he bought them on credit, which was offered by the gun store where he bought the guns.  And, you know as well as I do that credit companies like to give lots of credit to kids who are just starting out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't use credit he paid cash unless you have information that says otherwise? And thanks for validating that back ground checks don't work.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> smoking and drinking are not a right dumbass.


Now you are moving the goalposts a bit.

Minors do not have the same rights as adults.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL ever been on the military?  one sgt for 12 soldiers


Ha ha…..Silly response. You‘re pretending everyone is 18 and under and doesn’t have a chain of command  ? Hilarious. Yes…..I was in for ten years. You don’t carry a loaded weapon unless  you’re under orders to do so.

You talk like 18 year olds can carry loaded weapons anywhere they want. Guess maybe you were in the military choir ? . Personal off duty must be 21 years plus, permitted in the domain they serve and only at the discretion of base commander when on base. You talk like 18 year olds are not on a tight leash.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 12, 2022)

Coyote said:


> https://www.army.mil/article/245349/underage_drinking_poses_heightened_risk_for_community
> 
> 
> Soldiers charged with underage drinking under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, can face punishment depending on the crime’s severity or frequency. In the most severe cases that could mean being court-martialed or removed from the Army.


They dont enforce it.  Lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Now you are moving the goalposts a bit.
> 
> Minors do not have the same rights as adults.


Smoking and drinking isn't a right it's a privilege not the license attached to them. You're right minors don't have the same rights adults have. So you're saying 20 year olds are minors? 18-21 should not have adult rights if you take the right to self-defense away.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 13, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Japan Eschewed invading The West Coast of America because of how Armed the Populace was .


No, they didn't.

Without derailing this thread into WWII history talk, Japan didn't invade the West Coast because it wasn't one of their objectives.  Even if there wasn't a single firearm in the whole nation, it just wasn't on their To-Do list.  They were focused on the islands and China.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Smoking and drinking isn't a right it's a privilege not the license attached to them. You're right minors don't have the same rights adults have. So you're saying 20 year olds are minors? 18-21 should not have adult rights if you take the right to self-defense away.


So they shouldnt have the right to vote either. If they are not adults they shouldnt be able to vote.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Smoking and drinking isn't a right it's a privilege not the license attached to them. You're right minors don't have the same rights adults have. So you're saying 20 year olds are minors? 18-21 should not have adult rights if you take the right to self-defense away.


Aren't there already limits on which firearms 18-20s can buy?  I believe that the federal minimum age for buying a handgun from a licensed dealer is 21.  Doesn't that mean the precedent has already been set?


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Smoking and drinking isn't a right it's a privilege not the license attached to them. You're right minors don't have the same rights adults have. So you're saying 20 year olds are minors? 18-21 should not have adult rights if you take the right to self-defense away.


And, the right to bear arms IS NOT AN UNLIMITED RIGHT.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 13, 2022)

Coyote said:


> You can’t buy alcohol until you are 21 .
> You can’t buy cigarettes until you are 21.
> 
> But you can buy a gun.


But you can vote (which is way more dangerous that all of those)?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 13, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> No, they didn't.
> 
> Without derailing this thread into WWII history talk, Japan didn't invade the West Coast because it wasn't one of their objectives.  Even if there wasn't a single firearm in the whole nation, it just wasn't on their To-Do list.  They were focused on the islands and China.


They invaded Alaska and attempted to hold ground and probed the West Coast with shelling of an Oil Facility above Santa Barbara and sending a Submarine launched Bomber Aircraft on a mission over the Pacific Northwest . They sent ten thousand Balloon Bombs across the Pacific some of which caused fatalities and fires and were found from Alberta to Mexico and as Far East as Minnesota .


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> And, the right to bear arms IS NOT AN UNLIMITED RIGHT.


Shall not be infringed means what?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> But you can vote (which is way more dangerous that all of those)?


It's discrimination when you pick and choose what rights a person has. If you can't have one adult right you shouldn't have any adult rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Aren't there already limits on which firearms 18-20s can buy?  I believe that the federal minimum age for buying a handgun from a licensed dealer is 21.  Doesn't that mean the precedent has already been set?


If you can't have one adult right you shouldn't have any adult rights. Period.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So they shouldnt have the right to vote either. If they are not adults they shouldnt be able to vote.


Bingo


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Children will not be able to emancipate themselves from their parents any longer. Not until the age of 21


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 13, 2022)

Failzero said:


> No Because 900k Poles & Checs  were or Considered themselves German


And those in the US who considered themselves German tried to enlist into the German army in the world wars.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 13, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> And those in the US who considered themselves German tried to enlist into the German army in the world wars.


More came the other way ( Germans fleeing service in the Kaiser’s army in pre WW1 time frame flooded to California , Texas , Oregon , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania ... and in mid 30s German Jews flooded into any country that would accept them including Canada , America & Mexico , & China & Portugal ...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 13, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> View attachment 656885


Just wait until we decide to do that to your country....again....for the THIRD time....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 13, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Now you are moving the goalposts a bit.
> 
> Minors do not have the same rights as adults.


Make it ALL 18 or ALL 21 or STFU.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 13, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Just wait until we decide to do that to your country....again....for the THIRD time....


I thought it was quite a funny meme, you need to loosen up


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Shall not be infringed means what?


The right to form a militia shall not be infringed.
Maybe, you’re too ignorant to know constitutional law, but it’s the Supreme Court, NOT YOU, which interprets the constitution. Maybe, you’re ignorant of the firearm laws already in existence which DOES LIMIT YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. If you can read, read the Heller majority opinion.
Now tell me hold YOU HOLD THE position as the chief Justice of the SC. Otherwise, you’re FOS.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 13, 2022)

I’m a Militia Sergeant ( California State Militia ) does that mean your squared away with my right to military type ( style) weapons ?


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

Failzero said:


> I’m a Militia Sergeant ( California State Militia ) does that mean your squared away with my right to military type ( style) weapons ?


We’re not impressed. You  just said you were a California State Militia. You are subject to the firearm laws of California, not covered by the Fed. You’re part of the unorganized militia component. So, unless you’re a guardsman, you’re little soldier toys are LIMITED.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The right to form a militia shall not be infringed.
> Maybe, you’re too ignorant to know constitutional law, but it’s the Supreme Court, NOT YOU, which interprets the constitution. Maybe, you’re ignorant of the firearm laws already in existence which DOES LIMIT YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. If you can read, read the Heller majority opinion.
> Now tell me hold YOU HOLD THE position as the chief Justice of the SC. Otherwise, you’re FOS.


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


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The right to form a militia shall not be infringed.
> Maybe, you’re too ignorant to know constitutional law, but it’s the Supreme Court, NOT YOU, which interprets the constitution. Maybe, you’re ignorant of the firearm laws already in existence which DOES LIMIT YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. If you can read, read the Heller majority opinion.
> Now tell me hold YOU HOLD THE position as the chief Justice of the SC. Otherwise, you’re FOS.



*The right to form a militia shall not be infringed.

Hmmm...where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment?*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> *The right to form a militia shall not be infringed.
> 
> Hmmm...where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment?*


It doesn't that's why I wrote the correct passage.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


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


That’s an incorrect statement. It’s not a complete sentence. Now, go get the 2a and write it correctly. Otherwise, you’re lying.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s an incorrect statement. It’s not a complete sentence. Now, go get the 2a and write it correctly. Otherwise, you’re lying.


That's part of the 2nd amendment you fucking troll. It doesn't say to form a Militia


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


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


I’ll help you.
: “A well-regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I’ll help you.
> : “A well-regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


And your point
The Right of the people would be to keep and bear arms not to form a Militia.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> That's part of the 2nd amendment you fucking troll. It doesn't say to form a Militia


No it isn’t correct dufus. You can’t write just part of a statement and claim that that’s all it means. We do have English comprehension……maybe English is not your first languages…..


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> And your point
> The Right of the people would be to keep and bear arms not to form a Militia.


Now you’re rearranging the words…..go take an English comp class.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No it isn’t correct dufus. You can’t write just part of a statement and claim that that’s all it means. We do have English comprehension……maybe English is not your first languages…..


Troll show me the amendment that says the people have the right to a Militia?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Now you’re rearranging the words…..go take an English comp class.


Irony is thick


Dagosa said:


> The right to form a militia shall not be infringe


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I’ll help you.
> : “A well-regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


It’s called sentence and the first PHRASE  is the subjective complement. Now look up what a subjective  complement/phrase  is.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No it isn’t correct dufus. You can’t write just part of a statement and claim that that’s all it means. We do have English comprehension……maybe English is not your first languages…..




And the subordinate clause in an english sentence is subordinate to the main clause......The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It’s called sentence and the first PHRASE  is the subjective complement. Now look up what a subjective  complement/phrase  is.


You said The right to form a militia shall not be infringe. Now try it correctly.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Troll show me the amendment that says the people have the right to a Militia?


Dufus, the 2a. I can’t be held accountable   because you can’t read. But I’ll give you a hint.

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


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You said The right to form a militia shall not be infringe. Now try it correctly.


No I did not…you’re still fking up. I posted the 2a in its entirety. English is not your first language, I get it. You foreigners speak in little phrases.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No I did not…you’re still fking up. I posted the 2a in its entirety. English is not your first language, I get it. You foreigners speak in little phrases.


Troll yes you did


Dagosa said:


> The right to form a militia shall not be infringed.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


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


Should you protect the few or the many? So who's more important, the few or the many?


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Troll yes you did


well, that’s obvious if English isn’t your third language. Seems to be for you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Should you protect the few or the many? So who's more important, the few or the many?


Fuck off brit


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> well, that’s obvious if English isn’t your third language. Seems to be for you.


You wrote this
"The right to form a militia shall not be infringed."


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No it isn’t correct dufus. You can’t write just part of a statement and claim that that’s all it means. We do have English comprehension……maybe English is not your first languages…..


It ia both nitwit.  And Washingtons Army brought their own guns.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You wrote this
> "The right to form a militia shall not be infringed."


They do that as part of their twister act


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> They do that as part of their twister act


It's an ugly act.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> That's part of the 2nd amendment you fucking troll. It doesn't say to form a Militia


It says,


bigrebnc1775 said:


> You wrote this
> "The right to form a militia shall not be infringed."


dumbo, followed by an explanation.
You illiterates just speak in short phrases…like most non English speaking peoples. 

Besides, I have proof the constitutions authorizes a well regulated militia. We have the guard units. Not only  does it authorizes it, it specifically says it can’t be a bunch of bozos

“well regulated” can only occur if the states get financial aid and training from the Fed. No where in the 2a does it say persons have the right to bear arms. It says PEOPLE. That only only happens in militia groups. The constitution never addresses private carry of firearms. That’s why the SC always says, it’s not unlimited.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It says,
> 
> dumbo, followed by an explanation.
> 
> ...


You wrote this
"The right to form a militia shall not be infringed."


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It says,
> 
> dumbo, followed by an explanation.
> 
> ...


Shall not be infringed still confuses you.  Lmao

Leftist are dumb as rocks


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> Shall not be infringed still confuses you.  Lmao
> 
> Leftist are dumb as rocks


It always confuses me when people talk in grunts and are incapable of speaking English. You are the one who uses English as a second or third language.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It always confuses me when people talk in grunts and are incapable of speaking English. You are the one who uses English as a second or third language.


I use slang.  Deal with it
2a stands.  Not matter how much you piss in the wind about it.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> Shall not be infringed still confuses you.  Lmao
> 
> Leftist are dumb as rocks


Your right  to sound like an idiot on a forum “ shall not be infringed “ also.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> I use slang.  Deal with it
> 2a stands.  Not matter how much you piss in the wind about it.


You use slang ? Oh, you admit you don’t use English properly.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You use slang ? Oh, you admit you don’t use English properly.


I admit I dont care.  Simple...huh


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> I admit I dont care.  Simple...huh


Notice you don’t even include “ people”


eagle1462010 said:


> I admit I dont care.  Simple...huh


Thats no revelation. Just don’t pretend the 2a says something it does not. It says “ the right of the people “ not “persons.“ That’s why we have regulations. It’s a right bestowed upon a group of people who qualify.

And because you speak in grunts, you have no idea that the 2a is not unlimited and says so….otherwise, it would have said “persons”.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> We’re not impressed. You  just said you were a California State Militia. You are subject to the firearm laws of California, not covered by the Fed. You’re part of the unorganized militia component. So, unless you’re a guardsman, you’re little soldier toys are LIMITED.


British L1A1 ( SLR) Chinese Type 56 “ Spiker “ AK  , 1997 ArmaLite AR 10 A2 , Various Retro AR 15/M16 clones including XM177E1 and XM177E2, XM16E1 , 601, 604 , M16A1( 603),  M16A2 , M16A4 ,M4gery kinda limited


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Notice you don’t even include “ people”
> 
> Thats no revelation. Just don’t pretend the 2a says something it does not. It says “ the right of the people “ not “persons.“ That’s why we have regulations. It’s a right bestowed upon a group of people who qualify.
> 
> And because you speak in grunts, you have no idea that the 2a is not unlimited and says so….otherwise, it would have said “persons”.


Its simple.  Your side has been trying to overturn it, redefine it forever.  Shall not be infringed keeps winning


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> Its simple.  Your side has been trying to overturn it, redefine it forever.  Shall not be infringed keeps winning


Over turn it ? It’s written exactly the way it should be. You want to shoot military weapons, joint the Army/Guard. That’s what “well regulated”  means. You want to have personal firearm protection ? You have to qualify.  People are not persons. If it were a personal right, it would say “persons”.

So, the Supreme Court gets to call the shots. The way it should be. You may support the free availability for an AR15 to shoot up the landscape . Not me…..


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Smoking and drinking isn't a right it's a privilege not the license attached to them. You're right minors don't have the same rights adults have. So you're saying 20 year olds are minors? 18-21 should not have adult rights if you take the right to self-defense away.


21 is the recognized age of full adulthood.  Not being allowed to have a gun does not remove all options for self defense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Coyote said:


> 21 is the recognized age of full adulthood.  Not being allowed to have a gun does not remove all options for self defense.


Adults vote children don't.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Adults vote children don't.


Adults also smoke and drink.

Actually the voting age only became 18 in 1971, a direct consequence of the draft, where they could be drafted but not vote.

Either way, in this country, by 21, all rights are yours.  Seems good.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The question to ask is where he got 3000 dollars for the rifles?


Probably used grandma's credit card.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Adults also smoke and drink.
> 
> Actually the voting age only became 18 in 1971, a direct consequence of the draft, where they could be drafted but not vote.
> 
> Either way, in this country, by 21, all rights are yours.  Seems good.


Smoking and drinking aren't rights. And once again adults vote children don't.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The right to form a militia shall not be infringed.
> Maybe, you’re too ignorant to know constitutional law, but it’s the Supreme Court, NOT YOU, which interprets the constitution. Maybe, you’re ignorant of the firearm laws already in existence which DOES LIMIT YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. If you can read, read the Heller majority opinion.
> Now tell me hold YOU HOLD THE position as the chief Justice of the SC. Otherwise, you’re FOS.


The Supreme Court Ruled the 2nd is an individual right not a collective one and has nothing to do with service in a militia.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No it isn’t correct dufus. You can’t write just part of a statement and claim that that’s all it means. We do have English comprehension……maybe English is not your first languages…..


It must not be yours because that sentence does not say that the right is limited to belonging to a militia.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Supreme Court Ruled the 2nd is an individual right not a collective one and has nothing to do with service in a militia.


And in the same ruling, they ruled gun control and regulation is constitutional.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It says,
> 
> dumbo, followed by an explanation.
> You illiterates just speak in short phrases…like most non English speaking peoples.
> ...


Dumb ass the court held the 2nd is an individual right not dependent on being a member of the militia. In English the sentence does not say belonging to a militia is required it simply lists as one thing that might be done with the right.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Notice you don’t even include “ people”
> 
> Thats no revelation. Just don’t pretend the 2a says something it does not. It says “ the right of the people “ not “persons.“ That’s why we have regulations. It’s a right bestowed upon a group of people who qualify.
> 
> And because you speak in grunts, you have no idea that the 2a is not unlimited and says so….otherwise, it would have said “persons”.


LOL so you have no individual right to free speech to be secure from searches or any of the other things the bill of rights protects according to you.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL so you have no individual right to free speech to be secure from searches or any of the other things the bill of rights protects according to you.


?.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dumb ass the court held the 2nd is an individual right not dependent on being a member of the militia. In English the sentence does not say belonging to a militia is required it simply lists as one thing that might be done with the right.


The court allows regulation because not everyone qualifies. Read Heller.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It must not be yours because that sentence does not say that the right is limited to belonging to a militia.


Another non reader.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Supreme Court Ruled the 2nd is an individual right not a collective one and has nothing to do with service in a militia.


Only for people who qualify.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Only for people who qualify.


LOL everyone qualifies it takes a Judge to remove your rights.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> ?.


every right in the bill of rights says THE PEOPLE.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 13, 2022)

Coyote said:


> 21 is the recognized age of full adulthood.  Not being allowed to have a gun does not remove all options for self defense.



Waiting till 21 to kill your baby is a good idea too…it doesnt remove all options for birth control…….


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And in the same ruling, they ruled gun control and regulation is constitutional.


Actually that same ruling said weapons in common use are protected by the second amendment.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fuck off brit


Lead the way Yank


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Adults vote children don't.


One day you'll get to vote then


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 14, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> One day you'll get to vote then


I've been voting since 1980 Brit.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I've been voting since 1980 Brit.


Kids can't


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 14, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Kids can't


Born 1961


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Born 1961


Try acting it


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 14, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Try acting it


Fuck off brit


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fuck off brit


So that's a no, Yank, lol.

Say 15 year intervals. Say you're 60 and in 15 years, the 2nd gets amended, "The Right to Bear Arms" is removed. Will it effect you at aged 75? No. In another 15 years time, everyone with a gun needs a firearms certificate with the gun serial numbers listed. Will it effect you at age 90? No. In another 15 years time, the likes of the AR-15 are banned. Will that effect you at age 105? No. In another 15 years time, you cannot wander around with a gun, must be kept in a secure cabinet when not in use. Wi it effect you at age 120? No. In another 15 years time, handguns are banned under the length of 12 inches. Will that effect you at age 135? No.

And as that continues over the decades, America gets more gun safe at your disgust.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Over turn it ? It’s written exactly the way it should be. You want to shoot military weapons, joint the Army/Guard. That’s what “well regulated”  means. You want to have personal firearm protection ? You have to qualify.  People are not persons. If it were a personal right, it would say “persons”.
> 
> So, the Supreme Court gets to call the shots. The way it should be. You may support the free availability for an AR15 to shoot up the landscape . Not me…..


Who made you God?  Sorry my rights dont begin where yours begin. Your side hypes this for 1 agenda only.  Eventual ban of all guns.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 14, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Adults also smoke and drink.
> 
> Actually the voting age only became 18 in 1971, a direct consequence of the draft, where they could be drafted but not vote.
> 
> Either way, in this country, by 21, all rights are yours.  Seems good.


Yet at 18 if a major war you can be drated.  Uniform rules not petty picking issues from political dogma.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 14, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So that's a no, Yank, lol.
> 
> Say 15 year intervals. Say you're 60 and in 15 years, the 2nd gets amended, "The Right to Bear Arms" is removed. Will it effect you at aged 75? No. In another 15 years time, everyone with a gun needs a firearms certificate with the gun serial numbers listed. Will it effect you at age 90? No. In another 15 years time, the likes of the AR-15 are banned. Will that effect you at age 105? No. In another 15 years time, you cannot wander around with a gun, must be kept in a secure cabinet when not in use. Wi it effect you at age 120? No. In another 15 years time, handguns are banned under the length of 12 inches. Will that effect you at age 135? No.
> 
> And as that continues over the decades, America gets more gun safe at your disgust.


Fuck off brit


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 14, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Should you protect the few or the many? So who's more important, the few or the many?


My wife is more important that anyone else in this country so I'll protect her.  The second most important things are my dogs and I'll protect them too.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 14, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Kids can't


you can't vote for your ruler either.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 14, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> Who made you God?  Sorry my rights dont begin where yours begin. Your side hypes this for 1 agenda only.  Eventual ban of all guns.


Not all guns. Just the ones you lunatics want to distribute to criminals.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 14, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> every right in the bill of rights says THE PEOPLE.


Exactly…….people doesn’t mean every person has the unlimited right….You loose rights when you’re a convicted felon, underaged and  mentally challenged like  Trump Humpers


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> you can't vote for your ruler either.


Hey up, I didn't know you were bigrebnc1775's lackey


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> My wife is more important that anyone else in this country so I'll protect her.  The second most important things are my dogs and I'll protect them too.


The few are gun owners, the majority are not gun owners.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 14, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The few are gun owners, the majority are not gun owners.


So what?

That's their choice to be defenseless not mine. 

In light the SCOTUS ruling that police have no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone who calls them only idiots will choose to remain defenseless.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 14, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Hey up, I didn't know you were bigrebnc1775's lackey



It must suck not to be able to choose your own leaders.

You get inbred idiots that you can't get rid of.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 14, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> Yet at 18 if a major war you can be drated.  Uniform rules not petty picking issues from political dogma.


They aren't the same thing. Well that was easy.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Not all guns. Just the ones you lunatics want to distribute to criminals.


More made up bs from you.  What do you do for fun....forge money?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 14, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> More made up bs from you.  What do you do for fun....forge money?


You must be worried you will make the crazy list.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 14, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> More made up bs from you.  What do you do for fun....forge money?


We just had a gun a holic admit he could transfer guns to anyone, if he wanted to.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> We just had a gun a holic admit he could transfer guns to anyone, if he wanted to.


So


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So what?
> 
> That's their choice to be defenseless not mine.
> 
> In light the SCOTUS ruling that police have no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone who calls them only idiots will choose to remain defenseless.


Protect the many at the cost of the few.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It must suck not to be able to choose your own leaders.
> 
> You get inbred idiots that you can't get rid of.


Sounds like you're proud of Biden, lol

Boris is not inbred, he was born in America as well. The Party choose their leader, as you may have seen in the news, Boris could have been replaced.

As for the Monarchy, they don't rule, they're purely constitutional. It's clear you didn't know any of this because your posts are foolish, at best.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 15, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Protect the many at the cost of the few.


The government does not protect you.

The cops show up after the fact to take pictures of the blood splatter


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 15, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Sounds like you're proud of Biden, lol
> 
> Boris is not inbred, he was born in America as well. The Party choose their leader, as you may have seen in the news, Boris could have been replaced.
> 
> As for the Monarchy, they don't rule, they're purely constitutional. It's clear you didn't know any of this because your posts are foolish, at best.


I didn't vote for Senile Joe and I can at least vote against him in the next election.

You're stuck with that jug eared horse faced aging prince because you idiots actually still believe people are "born to rule"


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I didn't vote for Senile Joe and I can at least vote against him in the next election.
> 
> You're stuck with that jug eared horse faced aging prince because you idiots actually still believe people are "born to rule"


Your knowledge is poor, at best.

Biden is your ruler, whether you voted for him or not.

Here's a school lesson. There are two types of Monarchy, Absolute and Constitutional. An Absolute Monarchy makes the decisions, they rule. You find this in Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Eswatini, United Arab Emirates, and Vatican City. Other countries have Constitutional Monarchy's. So they're just a figure head of state and simply rubber stamp off what the government do, just like in the UK.

On a psychology side of things, there's an imaginary invisible hierocracy. So this is what insults are based on. So if someone feels they need to lower someone in this imaginary invisible hierocracy, the insult will be based on such things as hair colour, bodily features, sex, race, heritage etc.. So you feel you need to rise above Prince Charles, hence the large ears. But every post from you guys are predictable and follow basic psychology.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 15, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Your knowledge is poor, at best.
> 
> Biden is your ruler, whether you voted for him or not.
> 
> ...


No he is the current president and can be voted out.

You can't vote out the inbred price after his mommy finally kicks the bucket can you?

Constitutional monarch what a fucking oxymoron.  You're just too pathetic to get rid of the Queen and actually rule yourselves


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No he is the current president and can be voted out.
> 
> You can't vote out the inbred price after his mommy finally kicks the bucket can you?
> 
> Constitutional monarch what a fucking oxymoron.  You're just too pathetic to get rid of the Queen and actually rule yourselves


Your intellectual disability knows no bounds., in one lug, and out the other.

Do you have a carer that can relay the conversation to you?


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No he is the current president and can be voted out.
> 
> You can't vote out the inbred price after his mommy finally kicks the bucket can you?





Captain Caveman said:


> Your intellectual disability knows no bounds., in one lug, and out the other.
> 
> Do you have a carer that can relay the conversation to you?


Go suck the prince's dick peasant


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 16, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry, but as long as we have guns legally available for purchase, there will continue to be people who slip through the cracks and commit these kinds of atrocious acts.


If a person is legally able to own a gun, you cannot stop him from getting a gun.
if a person is willing to break the law to buy a gun, you cannot stop him from getting a gun.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> If a person is legally able to own a gun, you cannot stop him from getting a gun.
> if a person is willing to break the law to buy a gun, you cannot stop him from getting a gun.



Laws simply do not work.  If someone is intent on breaking the law they will break the law. 

As such we should dispense with all laws and return to "Wild West Justice".  That fits well with the ideal of arming teachers...we may as well arm EVERYONE.  Let EVERYONE figure out what's right in their book and dispense their justice as they see fit.

THIS is the America ruled by the Second Amendment!  THE ONLY AMENDMENT OF ANY VALUE.

Guns solve ALL PROBLEMS.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 16, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Laws simply do not work.  If someone is intent on breaking the law they will break the law.
> As such we should dispense with all laws and return to "Wild West Justice".


Nice non-seq you have there.
I even like the color.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nice non-seq you have there.



Isn't that what you said?  That the gun laws won't stop people from getting guns???  How is it a non sequitur????


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 16, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Isn't that what you said?  That the gun laws won't stop people from getting guns???  How is it a non sequitur????


You said:
"As such we should dispense with all laws"
There's no reason to get rid of laws that create crimes and punish people that break them.
Thus, your non seq.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said:
> "As such we should dispense with all laws"
> There's no reason to get rid of laws that create crimes and punish people that break them.
> Thus, your non seq.



No, it sounds to me like you are unwilling to accept your own comment.  My response was an OBVIOUS and RATIONAL extension of exactly what you said.

I cannot see how your comment could be interpreted any other way.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 16, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> No, it sounds to me like you are unwilling to accept your own comment.


Because you're lying to yourself.
Back into the pit.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because you're lying to yourself.
> Back into the pit.



LOL.  WHy is it that everyone who disagrees with you is "lying"?  That's the way a toddler processes information.

Perhaps it is time for you to get back to the ball pit!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No it isn’t correct dufus. You can’t write just part of a statement and claim that that’s all it means. We do have English comprehension……maybe English is not your first languages…..


So what the fuck are you saying?

The 2A does NOT say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Let me break it down for you, even though I am quite certain you know good and goddamn well what this is saying.

A well regulated militia....

being (which is an "is" verb--am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem)

Thus

is necessary for the security of a free state

therefore

the right of the people shall not be infringed

THE MEANING

The FedGov has no authority over arms....PERIOD.

Why is that so hard for you idiots to comprehend?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It says,
> 
> dumbo, followed by an explanation.
> You illiterates just speak in short phrases…like most non English speaking peoples.
> ...


Oh, yes....the "collective right" bullshit.

Rights cannot be held collectively.  They may be exercised collectively, but all rights are held individually or they become null.

The fact that you fail to understand this concept disqualifies you from any further discussion on the topic.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 17, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> One day you'll get to vote then


how clever

Enjoy bowing to your queen and perpetuating the concept of inequality, you limey shit.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 17, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Your knowledge is poor, at best.
> 
> Biden is your ruler, whether you voted for him or not.
> 
> ...


So, tell me how having a monarch does not perpetuate the concept of inequality?

...the defense rests....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 17, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So what the fuck are you saying?
> 
> The 2A does NOT say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
> 
> ...


You lost that argument long ago, dumbass. Stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Not all guns. Just the ones you lunatics want to distribute to criminals.




The only ones who intentionally gave guns to criminals was obama and eric holder....they sold guns to drug cartels......


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The only ones who intentionally gave guns to criminals was obama and eric holder....they sold guns to drug cartels......


Watch out. This is where that angry 2aguy yells at you and tells you that criminals are going to get guns anyway.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Watch out. This is where that angry 2aguy yells at you and tells you that criminals are going to get guns anyway.




They do.....even in Europe...where the preferred gun is the actual, fully automatic military rifle......a weapon banned on the continent, and in every European country, but the weapon criminals in Europe get easily.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> They do.....even in Europe...where the preferred gun is the actual, fully automatic military rifle......a weapon banned on the continent, and in every European country, but the weapon criminals in Europe get easily.


Oh, so with all those restrictions, people can still get guns easily. Well that's good to know. Then you won't mind a lot more gun regulation. By your own argument.

Noted.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh, so with all those restrictions, people can still get guns easily. Well that's good to know. Then you won't mind a lot more gun regulation. By your own argument.
> 
> Noted.



We have all the gun laws we need to arrest and lock up these  criminals…..

What we need to do is stop people like you and the democrats from releasing them over and over again


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We have all the gun laws we need to arrest and lock up these criminals…..


Neat.

Not only are you wrong, we also need better laws and systems to keep guns out of the hands of nutters.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Neat.
> 
> Not only are you wrong, we also need better laws and systems to keep guns out of the hands of nutters.



The people who failed at uvalde wereyou and the cops…….you support democrats who attacked the cops to the point they are terrified to do their jobs……that’s on you


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The people who failed at uvalde wereyou and the cops…….you support democrats who attacked the cops to the point they are terrified to do their jobs……that’s on you


That's an idiotic fantasy, and you embarrass yourself with your silly desperation.

And I don't play the gun humper game, where we talk about each incident in a vacuum, pretending to be too stupid to look at the big picture and the future.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's an idiotic fantasy, and you embarrass yourself with your silly desperation.
> 
> And I don't play the gun humper game, where we talk about each incident in a vacuum, pretending to be too stupid to look at the big picture and the future.



You aren’t looking at the big picture…..you will give up a Right for a temporary feeling of superiority……

Governments have murdered more people than criminals have or will…..

By taking guns, you make more victims than you think you will save…..victims of both criminals and their own governments……and you will feel smug as the bodies pile up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You aren’t looking at the big picture…..you will give up a Right for a temporary feeling of superiority……


Wrong. That's the strawman you invented to make it easier for yourself to make vapid, emotional points. 

I wouldn't take away your guns.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 18, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno what to think about this.  Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo.  Do we need to change the gun laws?  I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.
> 
> Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns?  Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.
> 
> ...


The rifles the shooter had cost around $2000 a piece. How did an 18 year old kid working at Wendy's come up with that kind of money ?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 18, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The rifles the shooter had cost around $2000 a piece. How did an 18 year old kid working at Wendy's come up with that kind of money ?


Probably used Grandma's credit cards.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 18, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The rifles the shooter had cost around $2000 a piece. How did an 18 year old kid working at Wendy's come up with that kind of money ?


When I was 18 I had more than that in the bank and I worked at a restaurant when the wage was far lower than it is today


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 18, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 Blues Man 









						The gunmaker whose rifle was used in Uvalde shooting reportedly runs direct-to-consumer ads aimed at younger buyers
					

The Georgia gunmaker Daniel Defense offers buy now, pay later, so the cost of buying its guns can be spread over several payment periods.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 18, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThunderKiss1965 Blues Man
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So what?


It means he didn't have to have all the money to cover the cost of the guns to acquire them. 

Did you not notice that part?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 18, 2022)

For all you people screaming "where did he get the money to buy the guns", simply Google "can you buy a gun with a credit card", and it will tell you who will and won't, as well as will tell you the conditions that must be met in order to buy guns on credit.

Sorry, but you don't need a butt ton of cash to buy guns anymore, be they rifles, handguns or assault rifles.









						Can you buy a gun with a credit card?
					






					wallethub.com


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 19, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It means he didn't have to have all the money to cover the cost of the guns to acquire them.
> 
> Did you not notice that part?


Again so what?

Advertising and payment plans are not illegal


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Again so what?
> 
> Advertising and payment plans are not illegal


Right...not sure where you are getting any of that... not sure who thought otherwise...

At least 5 times in this thread I have seen posters wonder how he had money to buy these guns.

This (kind off stupid and lazy) question is part of the construct of the boiling 'spiracy horseshit surrounding these events. 

So I was bringing some facts to the table.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 20, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right...not sure where you are getting any of that... not sure who thought otherwise...
> 
> At least 5 times in this thread I have seen posters wonder how he had money to buy these guns.
> 
> ...


I don;t wonder how he got the money.

I don;t find it impossible for an 18 year old to have a few grand.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I don;t wonder how he got the money.
> 
> I don;t find it impossible for an 18 year old to have a few grand.


Yes, I noticed. You're right, it's not impossible. 

But you were both discussing it, so I brought another fact to the table.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 24, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The question to ask is where he got 3000 dollars for the rifles?


The question to ask is how much does each indivisual politician receive from the NRA in order to do their bidding? I bet it's way more than  their yearly salary from the government.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> The question to ask is how much does each indivisual politician receive from the NRA in order to do their bidding? I bet it's way more than  their yearly salary from the government.


Impossible to tell.

That's what PACs are all about.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. That's the strawman you invented to make it easier for yourself to make vapid, emotional points.
> 
> I wouldn't take away your guns.




"You," don't have to....you give power to the democrats and their leadership who will take away our guns...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> When I was 18 I had more than that in the bank and I worked at a restaurant when the wage was far lower than it is today




And most of these killers plan 6 months to 2 years before they attack.......saving that much isn't hard, and if he had access to a credit card......he likely didn't plan on paying that card off....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThunderKiss1965 Blues Man
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So?  Most businesses have lay away plans....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It means he didn't have to have all the money to cover the cost of the guns to acquire them.
> 
> Did you not notice that part?




And?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> The question to ask is how much does each indivisual politician receive from the NRA in order to do their bidding? I bet it's way more than  their yearly salary from the government.




The NRA spends some of the lowest amounts for lobbying...you dumb ass...

You guys don't know what the F**k you are talking about...

Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts

You know how the argument goes. The "conventional wisdom" is the NRA's heavy spending stops hundreds of politicians from enacting the "common sense" gun control laws they and everyone else would otherwise support.
---------

There's only one problem with that theory. It's all wrong.

Of course, the NRA does spend money and it does have a sophisticated and persistent messaging operation. But so do dozens of other organizations and causes. So, how does the NRA stack up against them?

*Not too well. The NRA, gun makers, and gun rights issues do not even show up on the OpenSecrets website lists for top lobbying firms, top lobbying sectors, top lobbying issues, or top lobbying industries for the years 1998-2017.*

*The figures for Florida Senator Marco Rubio are particularly educational, since he has been a target of a lot of anti-NRA screeds since the shooting in his home state. *

*A look at the top 20 donors to Rubio directly and his PAC since 2009 does not include the NRA. Over his career since 2009, Rubio has raised a total of more than $91 million in donations. The NRA is responsible for just over $3 million of that, or 3.3 percent.*

* Big whoop, as they say. Yes, $3 million is a lot of money and more than most of us could ever donate to anything. But context is everything, and the even a so-called "poster boy" for NRA donations would only be 3.3 percent lighter in campaign cash without them.

Again, that certainly doesn't mean the NRA isn't spending a lot of money. But the Poltifact fact-checking website puts the total amount of NRA spending since 1998 at $203 million. *


*That figure is even smaller than it looks when you consider 30 percent of Americans, or about 100 million people, own a gun. By contrast, Wall Street and the broader financial industrial shelled out more than $1.1 billion in the 2016 election cycle alone. The financial industry employs only about six million people in total.*

The bulk of that $203 million doesn't actually go to candidates as the hysterical tweets and finger pointers seem to believe. It's spent on those "issue ads" that you see mostly on cable news channels during election years. But even if those ads are extremely influential, they are a much different animal than direct campaign donations to individual congressional and presidential candidates.

There's even a question of whether the NRA is very persuasive among actual gun owners. Fewer than 20 percent of American gun owners are even NRA members. That should tell us something about the "chicken or the egg" argument about the gun lobby. The NRA is much more likely piggybacking off the beliefs of gun owners as opposed to framing them in the first place. The real power is with those voting gun owners, not the lobby group that purports to represent them.

Some gun control advocates are wise to this fact. New America senior fellow Lee Drutman has been working to debunk the myth of the all-powerful NRA's money for several years. Beginning in 2012, he noted the NRA hadn't even made donations to a majority of members of Congress. He also made the correct designation between allegiance and influence. That is, the NRA supports candidates that already align with its philosophy as opposed to paying them to toe the line.

Former New York City mayor and media billionaire Mike Bloomberg has thus made a futile point over the years to combat the NRA's money machine. Bloomberg founded "Everytown for Gun Safety" in 2014based on matching the NRA's financial clout. It hasn't been a total political failure. But in the wake of so many mass shootings since 2014, it's also fair to say Everytown hasn't been able to shepherd any new significant national gun laws to passage either.

A much better strategy is to talk less about the NRA and focus more on resurrecting the anti-gun violence measures Americans have supported in the past. That includes beefed up policing and improved background check systems.

A misbegotten path is introducing new rules and misrepresenting them to the public. That's what happened last year when Democrats tried a proposed rule that they and most of the news media portrayed as a way to keep guns from the "mentally ill." But it really sought to put people into the federal government gun background database if they received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments. That's a far cry from "mentally ill." Even the ACLU and mental health advocates lined up against that idea, not just the NRA.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> The question to ask is how much does each indivisual politician receive from the NRA in order to do their bidding? I bet it's way more than  their yearly salary from the government.




You guys are such morons....you don't know what you are talking about...so you just lie....

The Myth of the Big Bad Gun Lobby | National Review

By contrast, the NRA gave just $982,000, or 1/30th the amount spent by Bloomberg. While not all of Bloomberg’s campaign donations were driven by gun issues, his spending clearly dwarfs what the NRA could give. 

In state and local races around the country, Bloomberg has deployed resources that the NRA could only dream of. In just two Virginia state-senate races in 2015, Bloomberg spent a total of $2.2 million. That is vastly more money than the NRA was able to spend on any race for the U.S. Congress. 


Bloomberg spent $150,000 alone on the election for Milwaukee sheriff, in an attempt to unseat outspoken gun-control opponent David Clarke — more than the combined amount that Clarke and his opponent spent on their own campaigns. 


When Advertising Age added up TV-advertising expenditures by those on either side of the gun-control issue for 2013, it found that gun-control groups outspent gun-rights groups by 7.4 to one, with 85 percent of their money coming from Bloomberg. And even setting aside Bloomberg’s massive contributions, the gun-control advocates still spent twice as much as the NRA and other pro-self-defense groups. 


Things get even more lopsided when we look at research funding. Bloomberg, billionaire George Soros, a few dozen large health-care foundations, and even the Obama-led federal government are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund research that supports their pro-gun-control positions. Newly released Bloomberg studies garner massive, uncritical news coverage. NRA-funded research would get scoffed at, which is why the NRA doesn’t even try funding opposing studies.

Read more at: The Myth of the Big Bad Gun Lobby | National Review


----------



## miketx (Jul 9, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno what to think about this.  Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo.  Do we need to change the gun laws?  I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.
> 
> Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns?  Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.
> 
> ...


Cops could have taken him down traitor but they refused. You scum want
 all us to face murderers disarmed!


----------



## miketx (Jul 9, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> The question to ask is how much does each indivisual politician receive from the NRA in order to do their bidding? I bet it's way more than  their yearly salary from the government.


The real question to ask you ghouls is how many more innocent people do you want to be at the mercy of violent criminals?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 10, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s an incorrect statement. It’s not a complete sentence. Now, go get the 2a and write it correctly. Otherwise, you’re lying.


It is a complete sentence. Go back to third grade English class.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 10, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Over turn it ? It’s written exactly the way it should be. You want to shoot military weapons, joint the Army/Guard. That’s what “well regulated”  means. You want to have personal firearm protection ? You have to qualify.  People are not persons. If it were a personal right, it would say “persons”.
> 
> So, the Supreme Court gets to call the shots. The way it should be. You may support the free availability for an AR15 to shoot up the landscape . Not me…..


This is weapon grade stupid.


----------



## surada (Jul 10, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dunno what to think about this.  Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo.  Do we need to change the gun laws?  I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.
> 
> Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns?  Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.
> 
> ...



Just broadcast photos of the crime scene and the Dead children.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The few are gun owners, the majority are not gun owners.


No, that's wrong.


Dagosa said:


> We just had a gun a holic admit he could transfer guns to anyone, if he wanted to.


SUUUUUUUUURE you did!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So that's a no, Yank, lol.
> 
> Say 15 year intervals. Say you're 60 and in 15 years, the 2nd gets amended, "The Right to Bear Arms" is removed. Will it effect you at aged 75? No. In another 15 years time, everyone with a gun needs a firearms certificate with the gun serial numbers listed. Will it effect you at age 90? No. In another 15 years time, the likes of the AR-15 are banned. Will that effect you at age 105? No. In another 15 years time, you cannot wander around with a gun, must be kept in a secure cabinet when not in use. Wi it effect you at age 120? No. In another 15 years time, handguns are banned under the length of 12 inches. Will that effect you at age 135? No.
> 
> And as that continues over the decades, America gets more gun safe at your disgust.


Fuck off brit and stick to kissing the asshole of the queen


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 10, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Laws simply do not work.  If someone is intent on breaking the law they will break the law.
> 
> As such we should dispense with all laws and return to "Wild West Justice".  That fits well with the ideal of arming teachers...we may as well arm EVERYONE.  Let EVERYONE figure out what's right in their book and dispense their justice as they see fit.
> 
> ...


Are you on crack?


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Neat.
> 
> Not only are you wrong, we also need better laws and systems to keep guns out of the hands of nutters.


And by "nutters," of course, you mean "people who do not agree with you."


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. That's the strawman you invented to make it easier for yourself to make vapid, emotional points.
> 
> I wouldn't take away your guns.


Liar.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 10, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> More made up bs from you.  What do you do for fun....forge money?


As opposed to gun a holics using guns as currency in the drug trade ?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 10, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> This is weapon grade stupid.


That’s a class gun a holics put things that are way beyond their comprehension……


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 10, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s a class gun a holics put things that are way beyond their comprehension……


No, try again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s a class gun a holics put things that are way beyond their comprehension……


In EVERY Amendment that uses the phrase "the people" before Heller they were all UNDERSTOOD to mean an Individual right. I suggest you explain how in all those amendments it is meant as a collective right?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 10, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In EVERY Amendment that uses the phrase "the people" before Heller they were all UNDERSTOOD to mean an Individual right. I suggest you explain how in all those amendments it is meant as a collective right?


Guess you never consulted a dictionary. If they had meant  every individual, they would have used “person.” like the constitution does. The constitution makes that distinction everywhere else they use the word “people” vs “persons”.
Maybe you should read it instead of just one right you holics never get right. You live in a world of made up shit. .
The constitution in the fourteenth amendment obviously uses person to apply to each and every individual
“We the ‘people’ .” is a collective speaking for the entire class or group.
“*The Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses, for example, offer their protections to "any person” *


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 10, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In EVERY Amendment that uses the phrase "the people" before Heller they were all UNDERSTOOD to mean an Individual right. I suggest you explain how in all those amendments it is meant as a collective right?


Nope......for one thing, it only applies to the collective right to form a militia with only those in the regulated militia having the right to bear arms.
Guess you never read the fourteenth amendment accurately either.  
You’re wrong.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 10, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fuck off brit and stick to kissing the asshole of the queen


Wah....child.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 11, 2022)

So the 1st amendment is a collective right? Not a personal right? How about the 4th and 5th amendments?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So the 1st amendment is a collective right? Not a personal right? How about the 4th and 5th amendments?


The first amendment is a collective right.” People” as  you personally can’t yell fire in a theater. It’s not guaranteed to any person at anytime in any place.....JUST LIKE THE SECOND IS NOT.
You can easily be arrested for personally demonstrating  and loitering in a plethora of circumstances...just like carrying a firearm, dumbo. Regulating both has long been upheld for only the QUALIFIED. EVEN Heller agrees with that.

The fourth is  not a personal right without exception...it’s not absolute.
How about them ?  A cop can search and seize without a warrant if in immediate pursuit of suspect WITH NO WARRANT..
The 5th amendment applies to all individuals without exception.. Hence “persons”
Read them fool.




RetiredGySgt said:


> So the 1st amendment is a collective right? Not a personal right? How about the 4th and 5th amendments?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The first amendment is a collective right.” People” as  you personally can’t yell fire in a theater. It’s not guaranteed to any person at anytime in any place.....JUST LIKE THE SECOND IS NOT.
> You can easily be arrested for personally demonstrating  and loitering in a plethora of circumstances...just like carrying a firearm, dumbo. Regulating both has long been upheld for only the QUALIFIED. EVEN Heller agrees with that.
> 
> The fourth is  not a personal right without exception...it’s not absolute.
> ...


you are beyond stupid.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The first amendment is a collective right.” People” as  you personally can’t yell fire in a theater. It’s not guaranteed to any person at anytime in any place.....JUST LIKE THE SECOND IS NOT.
> You can easily be arrested for personally demonstrating  and loitering in a plethora of circumstances...just like carrying a firearm, dumbo. Regulating both has long been upheld for only the QUALIFIED. EVEN Heller agrees with that.
> 
> The fourth is  not a personal right without exception...it’s not absolute.
> ...






The Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL Rights.

The only "collective" Right mentioned would be the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

westwall said:


> The Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> The only "collective" Right mentioned would be the 10th Amendment.


That’s your opinion, and it’s wrong. Get a fking dictionary and look up “ people” v “person.”
The Bill of rights ARE NOT ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Not every individual is entitled to them dullard Unless it specifically says so. I have proof, you have nothing. Not every-one  can have free speech any where they want  or carry a any gun anywhere they want.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s your opinion, and it’s wrong. Get a fking dictionary and look up “ people” v “person.”
> The Bill of rights ARE NOT ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Not every individual is entitled to them dullard Unless it specifically says so. I have proof, you have nothing. Not every-one  can have free speech any where they want  or carry a any gun anywhere they want.


Well except that EVERY Court since the beginning has held they are personal rights.


----------



## Failzero (Jul 11, 2022)

Truth over facts ?


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Wrong question. You should be asking why America has a stupid Amendment on guns.


It is called Liberty.  You wouldn't understand.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s your opinion, and it’s wrong. Get a fking dictionary and look up “ people” v “person.”
> The Bill of rights ARE NOT ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Not every individual is entitled to them dullard Unless it specifically says so. I have proof, you have nothing. Not every-one  can have free speech any where they want  or carry a any gun anywhere they want.





No, that is the correct interpretation.

Or, to put it far more simply, for the simetons out there, were they not individual Rights, they would have been gone long ago.

Now crawl back under the rock from whence you came.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well except that EVERY Court since the beginning has held they are personal rights.


No they have not. Read the Heller decision. It’s a personal right ONLY if you qualify. You as a Persons avail themselves to rights, only if you qualify. The rights  are peoples rights.
In Heller or even the first amendment….it’s not a personal right till he is qualified and licensed. 
That is ONLY a particular group of persons, not everyone. 
“The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a lower court: “*Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, *the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> No, that's wrong.
> 
> SUUUUUUUUURE you did!


So you are saying the majority own guns in America. The majority of 32%, lol

What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> It is called Liberty.  You wouldn't understand.



I fully understand, but obviously you don't, if you had checked out the Freedom and Liberty thread, you wouldn't have posted such a    post.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No they have not. Read the Heller decision. It’s a personal right ONLY if you qualify. You as a Persons avail themselves to rights, only if you qualify. The rights  are peoples rights.
> In Heller or even the first amendment….it’s not a personal right till he is qualified and licensed.
> That is ONLY a particular group of persons, not everyone.
> “The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a lower court: “*Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, *the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”


keep being immensely stupid.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I've owned and used guns. I'm British and the 2nd Amendment is outdated.


Again, it has nothing to do with the Amendment, it has to do with the case law.

Indeed, depending on how the Amendment is interpreted by the courts, it could be used to validate the types of regulation you support.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, it has nothing to do with the Amendment, it has to do with the case law.
> 
> Indeed, depending on how the Amendment is interpreted by the courts, it could be used to validate the types of regulation you support.



It's outdated. You have gun nuts running about with guns, yet they haven't got the brain power to list Japan's gun incidents and mass shooting stats.






						But....Japan has gun control?  So how was the Prime Minister shot?   Breaking news.....
					

Yep...the majority of those are suicides....but Faun won't let the truth get in the way of a good lie...  Meanwhile, Japan murdered 3 million innocent civilians during the war....unarmed civilians...  Also, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Smoking and drinking isn't a right it's a privilege not the license attached to them. You're right minors don't have the same rights adults have. So you're saying 20 year olds are minors? 18-21 should not have adult rights if you take the right to self-defense away.


This is a lie.

The right to self-defense for those under 21 is not being ‘taken away.’

It is lawful for those under 21 to possess firearms; those under 21 my obtain firearms via face-to-face intrastate transactions with fellow state residents or by having a firearm gifted to them.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I fully understand, but obviously you don't, if you had checked out the Freedom and Liberty thread, you wouldn't have posted such a    post.


You are confused.  Anybody that would post that the Second should be abolished doesn't have a clue what Liberty is all about.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> You are confused.  Anybody that would post that the Second should be abolished doesn't have a clue what Liberty is all about.


You've obviously not checked out the Freedom and Liberty thread. If you had and checked the link, you would have found the indices used to rank countries, and the indices from which countries. Then you have further seen that America is included in what to use to rank countries.

So instead of repeating the same ole sound bites year in, year out, go and educate yourself. Freedom and Liberty obviously doesn't mean the same your definition and/or agenda.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So you are saying the majority own guns in America. The majority of 32%, lol
> 
> What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?


You believe crap that a telephone pollster says?  Talk about being a dufus.

There are more guns in the hands of US citizens than all the rest of the world combined, including all the militaries.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> you are beyond stupid.


No, he is a combination of dishonest and evil.


Captain Caveman said:


> So you are saying the majority own guns in America. The majority of 32%, lol
> 
> What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?


If you believe those numbers, I have a BEAUTIFUL beach house for sale really cheap. It's an hour north of Wichita.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> The right to self-defense for those under 21 is not being ‘taken away.’
> 
> It is lawful for those under 21 to possess firearms; those under 21 my obtain firearms via face-to-face intrastate transactions with fellow state residents or by having a firearm gifted to them.


It not a lie you fucking lying sack of shit. Smoking and drinking is not a right. It's a privilege and exactly where is what I said wrong? If you deprive anyone 21 years old or younger of their basic right to self-defense they should not have any adult rights.


bigrebnc1775 said:


> Smoking and drinking isn't a right it's a privilege not the license attached to them. You're right minors don't have the same rights adults have. So you're saying 20 year olds are minors? 18-21 should not have adult rights if you take the right to self-defense away.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You've obviously not checked out the Freedom and Liberty thread. If you had and checked the link, you would have found the indices used to rank countries, and the indices from which countries. Then you have further seen that America is included in what to use to rank countries.
> 
> So instead of repeating the same ole sound bites year in, year out, go and educate yourself. Freedom and Liberty obviously doesn't mean the same your definition and/or agenda.




I don't give a shit about other counties.  Here in the US we have the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution and that is real Liberty.  Like I said, you wouldn't understand.  You can't explain the concept of Liberty to an idiot.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> .... you fucking lying sack of shit.


This really sums it up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> It's outdated. You have gun nuts running about with guns, yet they haven't got the brain power to list Japan's gun incidents and mass shooting stats.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

Until 2008, the Supreme Court recognized a collective – not individual – right to possess firearms enshrined in the Second Amendment.

The collective right interpretation would have authorized the firearm regulatory measures you support:

‘In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008…’









						Second Amendment
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




Your issue, then, is with the Supreme Court, not the Second Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> At least you’re consistent at being wrong.
> 
> Until 2008, the Supreme Court recognized a collective – not individual – right to possess firearms enshrined in the Second Amendment.


^^^^
This is lie.
Disagree?
Cite the holding and copy/paste the text to that effect from same.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.


^^^^
Another lie.

_"...Miller _did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.  The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment  challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236.  It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment  did not apply was _not _that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” _post_, at 2_._  Rather, it was that the _type of weapon at issue _was not eligible for Second Amendment  protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment  guarantees the right to keep and bear _such an instrument_.”  307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added).  “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”  _Ibid._  Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment  confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”).  Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment  protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.  Justice Stevens can say again and again that _Miller_ did “not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,” _post_, at 42–43, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise.  The most Justice Stevens can plausibly claim for _Miller _is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment  right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, pp. 4–5.  _Miller_ stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment  right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."
DC v Heller   2008


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> No, he is a combination of dishonest and evil.
> 
> If you believe those numbers, I have a BEAUTIFUL beach house for sale really cheap. It's an hour north of Wichita.


The stage is yours, just post a couple of links that states over 50% of the population own a gun. A few state 32%, some are reporting between mid 30's to mid 40's.

If you can do that, problem solved (btw, no gun nut sites, has to be official stat sites)


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> I don't give a shit about other counties.  Here in the US we have the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution and that is real Liberty.  Like I said, you wouldn't understand.  You can't explain the concept of Liberty to an idiot.


Yet again, put your silly criteria to one side and go check the indices.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> At least you’re consistent at being wrong.
> 
> Until 2008, the Supreme Court recognized a collective – not individual – right to possess firearms enshrined in the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


The only trouble is, American culture is based on Toxic Individualism. One day, the Right to Bear Arms will be amended.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yet again, put your silly criteria to one side and go check the indices.




Indices made by idiot like yourself that don't have any concept of real Liberty is as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

If anybody thinks that living in a country that doesn't have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is living in freedom doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground and it would be a waste of time to explain it to them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> At least you’re consistent at being wrong.
> 
> Until 2008, the Supreme Court recognized a collective – not individual – right to possess firearms enshrined in the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


Lying sack of shit


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The only trouble is, American culture is based on Toxic Individualism. One day, the Right to Bear Arms will be amended.


And you'll never live to see it happen.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The stage is yours, just post a couple of links that states over 50% of the population own a gun. A few state 32%, some are reporting between mid 30's to mid 40's.
> 
> If you can do that, problem solved (btw, no gun nut sites, has to be official stat sites)



Actually, it depends on what group you are using to conduct the poll with.  If you are going for general population (meaning everyone) then your figures are right.  However, if you start to break it down by various subgroups of the population (married or single, living in the city or the country, Republican or Democrat), the stats can vary over quite a wide range.

Here is a link to a Gallup poll, and has a breakdown of not only the population at large, but also various subgroups of the American population.

Hope it helps.









						What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?
					

Read Gallup's short answer to this common question about gun ownership, including what percentages of major demographic subgroups own guns.




					news.gallup.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, it depends on what group you are using to conduct the poll with.  If you are going for general population (meaning everyone) then your figures are right.  However, if you start to break it down by various subgroups of the population (married or single, living in the city or the country, Republican or Democrat), the stats can vary over quite a wide range.
> 
> Here is a link to a Gallup poll, and has a breakdown of not only the population at large, but also various subgroups of the American population.
> 
> ...











						How Many Guns Do Americans Own?
					

Lack of a central database makes gun tallies tricky, but research shows a sharp rise in gun ownership.




					www.wsj.com


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How Many Guns Do Americans Own?
> 
> 
> Lack of a central database makes gun tallies tricky, but research shows a sharp rise in gun ownership.
> ...



Your link has a pay wall, not gonna subscribe just to read what you think is correct.  Mine is a Gallup poll that anyone can read without subscribing, and has a breakdown of gun ownership (people who actually own guns), as well as people in gun households (people don't own the guns, but someone in the house does, so they are living in a house with a gun).  It also breaks it down via political party, male or female, as well as some other subgroups.  Yours appears to be an opinion piece (like I said, couldn't read because it requires a subscription to do so), whereas mine has actual figures from an actual poll.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Your link has a pay wall, not gonna subscribe just to read what you think is correct.  Mine is a Gallup poll that anyone can read without subscribing, and has a breakdown of gun ownership (people who actually own guns), as well as people in gun households (people don't own the guns, but someone in the house does, so they are living in a house with a gun).  It also breaks it down via political party, male or female, as well as some other subgroups.  Yours appears to be an opinion piece (like I said, couldn't read because it requires a subscription to do so), whereas mine has actual figures from an actual poll.


Makes no difference more people own guns than what gallop says


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 11, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Here is a link to a Gallup poll, and has a breakdown of not only the population at large, but also various subgroups of the American population.


According to this, 44% of households have a gun.  That's 44 houses out of my 100 house neighborhood.
~122,000,000 households in the US - 53,000,000 of them have a gun.
~2.6 people per household - 139,000,000 people in the US have direct access to a gun.
And yet, we only see ~10k gun-related murders per year
Hmm.

Interesting that the higher your income, the more likely you are to have a gun/have a gun in the house.
Looks like my 100-house neighborhood is more like 55 houses with a gun it it.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> And you'll never live to see it happen.


You won't either, but it's gonna happen. So make sure you get tears etched into your gravestone.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, it depends on what group you are using to conduct the poll with.  If you are going for general population (meaning everyone) then your figures are right.  However, if you start to break it down by various subgroups of the population (married or single, living in the city or the country, Republican or Democrat), the stats can vary over quite a wide range.
> 
> Here is a link to a Gallup poll, and has a breakdown of not only the population at large, but also various subgroups of the American population.
> 
> ...


I am going by, what percentage of the US population own a gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 11, 2022)

^^^
Hates facts, whishes he had some.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The stage is yours, just post a couple of links that states over 50% of the population own a gun. A few state 32%, some are reporting between mid 30's to mid 40's.
> 
> If you can do that, problem solved (btw, no gun nut sites, has to be official stat sites)


How does anybody determine who has a gun and who doesn't?  I was born when Harry Truman was President and in my long life I never had anybody ask me about the firearms I own.  If they did I would probably not tell them the truth because it is none of their business.

I have friends that own firearms that would never admit to anybody that they have them.

The references you posted are based upon telephone polling from a small number of people and are very unreliable.  You are just gullible.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> How does anybody determine who has a gun and who doesn't?  I was born when Harry Truman was President in my long life I never had anybody ask me about the firearms I own.  If they did I would probably not tell them the truth because it is none of their business.
> 
> I have friends that own firearms that would never admit to anybody that they have them.
> 
> The references you posted are based upon telephone polling from a small number of people and are very unreliable.  You are just gullible.



Guess different places (and different times) have different attitudes.  I grew up in Montana where hunting was a way of life for many of us, and if asked if we had guns, we usually said yes.  Actual number wasn't referred to as much, just when asked, the reply was "a few" which could mean anywhere from 2 to over 30 (my Uncle Bill had around 27 guns in the house where only 7 people lived, about half handguns and half rifles and the foster family I lived with had around 7 for a family with 5, mostly rifles with 2 handguns).  And, you generally knew which high school students owned guns, because when hunting season came around, all the kids with gun racks in their vehicles had at least 1 rifle in their rack, many with 2 or 3.  And, that wasn't because they were looking to shoot up the school, they were just being prepared in case they saw an animal for hunting on their ride into school (my school was 30 miles away from where I lived).  Times have changed a great deal since I was in school, as now you can be expelled for pointing a finger gun at another student.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> How does anybody determine who has a gun and who doesn't?  I was born when Harry Truman was President and in my long life I never had anybody ask me about the firearms I own.  If they did I would probably not tell them the truth because it is none of their business.
> 
> I have friends that own firearms that would never admit to anybody that they have them.
> 
> The references you posted are based upon telephone polling from a small number of people and are very unreliable.  You are just gullible.


Ok, I'm so gullible, please post your link to the true gun ownership stats. Just remember retard, no gun nut pamphlet links.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> View attachment 668977
> ^^^
> Hates facts, whishes he had some.


I like facts, just that gun nuts have none, whatsoever.

(Don't you just love the childish covert posts because those posters know they get spanked everytime)


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Ok, I'm so gullible, please post your link to the true gun ownership stats. Just remember retard, no gun nut pamphlet links.


That is my point, dufus.  Nobody fucking knows.  Just because some shitheads gets 700 people to respond to a telephone survey and then uses some stupid formula to extrapolate that to the general populace doesn't mean they know either.

I bet everybody they surved in Chicago that used a gun for a crime will tell the survey "nope, no guns here".


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> That is my point, dufus.  Nobody fucking knows.  Just because some shitheads gets 700 people to respond to a telephone survey and then uses some stupid formula to extrapolate that to the general populace doesn't mean they know either.


Well retard, just like anything, you have to go by the statisticians. If you want to claim A, B, or C, then you need your evidence. So if the stats are wrong, you need to provide the figures. Just saying, "No body knows", achieves sweet Fanny Adam. So unless you can claim otherwise, rationally, some 32% of Americans own a gun, ie, the minority.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> you are beyond stupid.


Sure, it just seems that way when you’re not around your illiterate dufus Humper minions who al, take the idiot Tucker at his word.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> That is my point, dufus.  Nobody fucking knows.  Just because some shitheads gets 700 people to respond to a telephone survey and then uses some stupid formula to extrapolate that to the general populace doesn't mean they know either.
> 
> I bet everybody they surved in Chicago that used a gun for a crime will tell the survey "nope, no guns here".


Chicago, your fall back argument even though Illinois the state it resides is one of the safer states.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Well retard, just like anything, you have to go by the statisticians. If you want to claim A, B, or C, then you need your evidence. So if the stats are wrong, you need to provide the figures. Just saying, "No body knows", achieves sweet Fanny Adam. So unless you can claim otherwise, rationally, some 32% of Americans own a gun, ie, the minority.


You stupid Moon Bats don't have a clue how flawed the telephone polls are, do you?

Nobody knows how many people in the US own firearms.  That information is not in any credible data base.

The government knows how many guns are sold each year through licensed firearms dealers but that is about it.  

I have about 50 firearms.  About half of them were acquired outside of licensed firearms dealers so the government (and anybody else) has no idea who has them.

Over the years I have sold or traded dozens of firearms (legally) to other individuals and family members and the government or a pollster has no idea.

You don't know what you are talking about spouting your dribble about the number of Americans that own firearms.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Chicago, your fall back argument even though Illinois the state it resides is one of the safer states.


How safe is Chicago?  You want me to post the numbers of daily shootings?  There is an Internet site that updates the figures daily.  It is called "Hey Jackass".


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well except that EVERY Court since the beginning has held they are personal rights.


They are persona


RetiredGySgt said:


> Well except that EVERY Court since the beginning has held they are personal rights.


They are personal Guaranteed rights only for the qualified. Persons as  a subset of people. The 2a SAYS PEOPLE, not persons. The only  people who can have a firearm, are those who are qualified. Are you that  stupid ? small Children can’t legally, convicted felons can’t.  Neither  can  people posses any firearm any where. Try gettin* on a plane with a firearm and tell them it’s your personal right before they cart you away in cuffs..


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> You stupid Moon Bats don't have a clue how flawed the telephone polls are, do you?
> 
> Nobody knows how many people in the US own firearms.  That information is not in any credible data base.
> 
> ...


Then post your stats, numpty nuts. You don't have to work for NASA, it's not rocket science.

Why can't gun nuts answer simple questions when it shows how much of a retard they are.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You won't either, but it's gonna happen. So make sure you get tears etched into your gravestone.


Nope I trained my children to defend their rights. The second amendment might be gone but the right to self-defense will remain forever.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Then post your stats, numpty nuts. You don't have to work for NASA, it's not rocket science.
> 
> Why can't gun nuts answer simple questions when it shows how much of a retard they are.




You fucking moron.  There are no stats.

Nobody knows because there is no credible data base.

Your stupid telephone polls are flawed and you have nothing else.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> How safe is Chicago?  You want me to post the numbers of daily shootings?  There is an Internet site that updates the figures daily.  It is called "Hey Jackass".


How safe is republican led  Baton Rouge ? How safe is republican led Jackson and Little Rock. All with repo mayors  and have higher crime rates  than Chicago. Why aren’t  you complaining about them, head up your ass.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nope I trained my children to defend their rights. The second amendment might be gone but the right to self-defense will remain forever.


The right to self defense is not the same as the right to posses a firearm. You have to be qualified in every state in the union to posses a firearm. That is not a guaranteed or absolute right.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Then post your stats, numpty nuts. You don't have to work for NASA, it's not rocket science.
> 
> Why can't gun nuts answer simple questions when it shows how much of a retard they are.


Because they are too retarded to understand  the queen’s language. You know, Freddy Mercury.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nope I trained my children to defend their rights. The second amendment might be gone but the right to self-defense will remain forever.


Poor kids, they'll have to do the etching. You should train them to be stone masons.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> How safe is Chicago?  You want me to post the numbers of daily shootings?  There is an Internet site that updates the figures daily.  It is called "Hey Jackass".


Oh, along with the others, Chattanooga, Wilmington, Dayton blah blah….,  
all with repug mayors and crime rates HIGHER THEN Chicago.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> You fucking moron.  There are no stats.
> 
> Nobody knows because there is no credible data base.
> 
> Your stupid telephone polls are flawed and you have nothing else.


The stats are on the internet you utter pillock. If you can't come up with an answer, go and rodger yourself with a stiff stick because your last umpteen posts have supplied fuck all answers. If you don't believe in stats, then good for you. Lather them in margarine and shove right up where the sun doesn't shine.

Unless you have any data, the planet is going by the fucking stats on the fucking internet for the fucking debate on fucking gun ownership in the fucking good old fucking USA. Has that sunk in?


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> How safe is republican led  Baton Rouge ? How safe is republican led Jackson and Little Rock. All with repo mayors  and have higher crime rates  than Chicago. Why aren’t  you complaining about them, head up your ass.




There are two Americas.  Not the Red States - Blue States you hear about.  It is America and the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.

The majority of gun crimes in this country takes place among minority gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in cities mostly controlled by Democrats.

In Illinois it is Chicago.  In Georgia it is Atlanta. In Maryland it is Baltimore. in Tennessee it is Memphis. In Texas it is Houston.  In Michigan it is Detroit.  In Louisana it is New Orleans, etc.  

In my Central Florida county we have some crime and the occasional shooter.  However, the mostly Conservative DA and the real Conservative Sheriff do not not the thugs get away with anywhere like the Democrats in the big city shitholes. 

That is why you can walk down most of the street in my County after dark and not get shot but if you do in Chicago there is a significant chance you will.  Like more than a dozen shooting every day and twice that many on weekend days.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Poor kids, they'll have to do the etching. You should train them to be stone masons.


I would never train them to be trash subjugate Brits. Kissing the asshole of the queen.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I would never train them to be trash subjugate Brits. Kissing the asshole of the queen.


Yet again, your sheer ignorance on a Constitutional Monarchy is on display on your sleeve. Idiot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yet again, your sheer ignorance on a Constitutional Monarchy is on display on your sleeve. Idiot.


Trash I know the Constitution you piece of shit


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Trash I know the Constitution you piece of shit


If you're gonna debate with a Brit, up your game on history. Stick within the borders of the US, you will come across nothing but ignorant on international affairs and history.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Trash I know the Constitution you piece of shit


No you don't, your posts display that. Fool.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you're gonna debate with a Brit, up your game on history. Stick within the borders of the US, you will come across nothing but ignorant on international affairs and history.


No I'm not going to debate an unintelligent trash pile subjugated ass kissing piece of shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> No you don't, your posts display that. Fool.


Yes I do now go kiss the asshole of the queen some more


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No I'm not going to debate an unintelligent trash pile subjugated ass kissing piece of shit.


You're just used to distance in America, and fuck all on history. And your ignorance on British history is glaring.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Then post your stats, numpty nuts. You don't have to work for NASA, it's not rocket science.
> 
> Why can't gun nuts answer simple questions when it shows how much of a retard they are.


there  are no stats because none have ever been taken, polls are conducted over land lines and in the US most people no longer have land lines or dont answer polls.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You're just used to distance in America, and fuck all on history. And your ignorance on British history is glaring.


You have no rights in Britian, at ANY time a parliament can remove any thing you do have and there is nothing that stops them and nothing you can do except hope to elect enough new members of that body to change it back.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have no rights in Britian, at ANY time a parliament can remove any thing you do have and there is nothing that stops them and nothing you can do except hope to elect enough new members of that body to change it back.


Yes, we go by Responsibilities. You guys have a couple of Rights because you're not responsible with Responsibilities.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> There are two Americas.  Not the Red States - Blue States you hear about.  It is America and the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.
> 
> The majority of gun crimes in this country takes place among minority gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in cities mostly controlled by Democrats.
> 
> ...


You’re delusional….
what do most of the ten most dangerous states have in common ?
They are republican.

New Mexico
Louisiana
Arkansas
South Carolina
Tennessee
Alaska
Missouri
Oklahoma
Colorado
Arizona

Chicago ranks 23 in the country for dangerous cities.
There are 1/2 dozen republican controlled cities MORE DANGEROUS.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> There are two Americas.  Not the Red States - Blue States you hear about.  It is America and the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.
> 
> The majority of gun crimes in this country takes place among minority gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in cities mostly controlled by Democrats.
> 
> ...


Most of the felony crime  is in red states. Most of the crime is committed by whites. Whites make up 61% of the population and commit 58% of the felony crimes. That compares about right. Of course, it wouldn’t be so high except for all the Trump, officials  who have been indicted.

Reminder, Chicago is 23 and there are half a dozen repugnant cities worse.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jul 11, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Are you on crack?



Are you an idiot?  I guess you don't read much.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 11, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You're just used to distance in America, and fuck all on history. And your ignorance on British history is glaring.


You're va subject of the crown you fucking little twit. Fuck all my American history? Numbnuts you don't have a fucking clue about American history other than what you have read about it. I on the other hand have been a living historian with first person impressions of period historical events.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

> Uvalde shooter legally bought his guns............​


Thus, gun control does not work.  

Machine guns or Valhalla!


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're va subject of the crown you fucking little twit. Fuck all my American history? Numbnuts you don't have a fucking clue about American history other than what you have read about it. I on the other hand have been a living historian with first person impressions of period historical events.


Truly bi lingual.  Trumpish  and Fk.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Thus, gun control does not work.
> 
> Machine guns or Valhalla!


How do we know. There are no effective laws.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re delusional….
> what do most of the ten most dangerous states have in common ?
> They are republican.
> 
> ...


You must have peanut butter between your ears.  The most dangerous crime infested areas in the US are the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.  For instance, almost all the serious crime in Tennessee happens in Memphis with a goddamn Democrat Mayor and all the minority druggies, street thugs and gang bangers that infest all the Democrat controlled shitholes. 

Chicago stats is for the metroplex that includes all the White suburbs, mostly independent cities with far less crime. The City of Chicago itself is controlled by the Democrat filth and has the country's worst crime rate.

You show me another city in the US that has a worst record than this:









						Chicago Crime, Murder & Mayhem | Criminal Infographics | HeyJackass!
					

Illustrating the Chicago Values of Crime, Murder & Mayhem with comprehensive charts, precise graphs and exhaustive data sets of Chicago stupidity.




					heyjackass.com
				





Year To Date
Shot & Killed: *321*
Shot & Wounded: *1431*
Total Shot: *1752*
Total Homicides: *351*


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> You must have peanut butter between your ears.  The most dangerous crime infested areas in the US are the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.  For instance, almost all the serious crime in Tennessee happens in Memphis with a goddamn Democrat Mayor and all the minority druggies, street thugs and gang bangers that infest all the Democrat controlled shitholes.
> 
> Chicago stats is for the metroplex that includes all the White suburbs, mostly independent cities with far less crime. The City of Chicago itself is controlled by the Democrat filth and has the country's worst crime rate.
> 
> ...


Your hilarious. red states are the most crime ridden areas.
Worse 10….they dominate in republican controlled states.
hey dufus, you do get that states are BIGGER then cities.

Hey dufus. Violent felony crimes are STATE CRIMES. THE STATE and county COURTS ARE responsible for prosecuting felonies. Dumbo.
“The overwhelming majority of criminal prosecutions take place in a state court.”
look it up,dumbo.

BTW, there are six crime ridden republican cities worse then Chicago.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Nope......for one thing, it only applies to the collective right to form a militia with only those in the regulated militia having the right to bear arms.
> Guess you never read the fourteenth amendment accurately either.
> You’re wrong.



You and the other asshats work so hard to lie……you want our guns so bad, I can only imagine what you plan after you get them


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Your hilarious. red states are the most crime ridden areas.
> Worse 10….they dominate in republican controlled states.
> hey dufus, you do get that states are BIGGER then cities.
> 
> ...



And there you are…..lying….you say Red States because you know the crime is created in democrat party controlled blue cities you dishonest fuck…..


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Your hilarious. red states are the most crime ridden areas.
> Worse 10….they dominate in republican controlled states.
> hey dufus, you do get that states are BIGGER then cities.
> 
> ...



Lying shit head….the democrat party prosecutors and judges release the criminals in blue cities…..you guys are really vile with your lying and distortions.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 12, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're va subject of the crown you fucking little twit. Fuck all my American history? Numbnuts you don't have a fucking clue about American history other than what you have read about it. I on the other hand have been a living historian with first person impressions of period historical events.


The UK's history is a two foot thick stamp album, America's history couldn't fill a stamp.

The Monarchy is constitutional, it's there for tradition, a figure head of state, to rubber stamp parliament's decisions. No one bows to it, get that into your thick skull, it milks money out of tourists. And while I'm at it, please pass on my condolences to the historian you live with because they have to tolerate a bellend.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> The UK's history is a two foot thick stamp album, America's history couldn't fill a stamp.
> 
> The Monarchy is constitutional, it's there for tradition, a figure head of state, to rubber stamp parliament's decisions. No one bows to it, get that into your thick skull, it milks money out of tourists. And while I'm at it, please pass on my condolences to the historian you live with because they have to tolerate a bellend.


Dumbfuck you're a subject of the crown. But I really don't give a fuck about your shithole country.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dumbfuck you're a subject of the crown. But I really don't give a fuck about your shithole country



It’s to be expected when you don’t know shit about your own constitution, you don’t know shit about anyone else.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Nope......for one thing, it only applies to the collective right to form a militia with only those in the regulated militia having the right to bear arms.
> Guess you never read the fourteenth amendment accurately either.
> You’re wrong.











						The ‘Strange’ Syntax of the Second Amendment
					






					firearmslaw.duke.edu


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The ‘Strange’ Syntax of the Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gee, is that saying that we should look at the 2a as only  relevant to the time it was written ?

Gee, then it only applies to black powder weapons, which in general HAS remained unregulated. You have only to look at every firearm related decision but the SC. They have all determined that firearm possession is not absolute and does NOT APPLY TO EVERY PERSON. One  has to qualify to have that right. So your argument is on def ears. The right to bear arms is a non absolute and only for the people and not for every person. Just btw, like it is for the first amendment.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Gee, is that saying that we should look at the 2a as only  relevant to the time it was written ?
> 
> Gee, then it only applies to black powder weapons, which in general HAS remained unregulated. You have only to look at every firearm related decision but the SC. They have all determined that firearm possession is not absolute and does NOT APPLY TO EVERY PERSON. One  has to qualify to have that right. So your argument is in def ears. The right to bear arms is a non absolute and only for the people and not for every person. Just btw, like it is for the first amendment.


No it says we cannot interpret the language the way we do modern English.

The being clause has faded out of use but in the 18th century it was a common grammatical construct.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man


Blues Man said:


> No it says we cannot interpret the language the way we do modern English.
> 
> The being clause has faded out of use but in the 18th century it was a common grammatical construct.


Then the 2a only applies to black powder firearms and any-other arm common to that day.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Blues Man
> 
> Then the 2a only applies to black powder firearms and any-other arm common to that day.


Then the First only applies to words written on parchment with quill and ink


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Then the First only applies to words written on parchment with quill and ink


Did you make that last post ? Or did yoo mama. What a child.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Did you make that last post ? Or did yoo mama. What a child.


Just using your "logic" applied to the First Amendment


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Just using your "logic" applied to the First Amendment


Now you’re really sad.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Now you’re really sad.


Your "logic" is sad


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Your "logic" is sad


If the language used in constitution should  only be used in the context of that day, then “arms” should be interpreted to include only black powder firearms dumbbell.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> If the language used in constitution should  only be used in the context of that day, then “arms” should be interpreted to include only black powder firearms dumbbell.


I never said it should be used in the context of that day.

I SAID we need to interpret the meaning using the language conventions and grammatical devices in use at the time.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Did you make that last post ? Or did yoo mama. What a child.


When this response is all you have, you know you're getting your ass kicked.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> If the language used in constitution should  only be used in the context of that day, then “arms” should be interpreted to include only black powder firearms dumbbell.


And if you believe that then it would apply to ALL amendments including the first therefore no electronic media would be protected under the free speech provision,


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 12, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dumbfuck you're a subject of the crown. But I really don't give a fuck about your shithole country.


Yet again numpt, nope. No one is a subject of the Crown, the Crown Estate answers to Parliament and it's yearly profits go to the treasury. Schooled again kid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yet again numpt, nope. No one is a subject of the Crown, the Crown Estate answers to Parliament and it's yearly profits go to the treasury. Schooled again kid.


😆 Sure thing as you bow kissing the asshole of the queen.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jul 12, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 😆 Sure thing as you bow kissing the asshole of the queen.



And you lick your presidents ring piece.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And if you believe that then it would apply to ALL amendments including the first therefore no electronic media would be protected under the free speech provision,


Wrong, because the constitutions does not refer to any particular mode of communications…it does with the 2a. It specifically  says “arms”. It’s your choice. You can’t have it both ways.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 😆 Sure thing as you bow kissing the asshole of the queen.


You appear to be pretty ignorant of governance in UK, as you are in the US of A.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> When this response is all you have, you know you're getting your ass kicked.


I can see you’re conceding. Emojis are a sure sign you have nothing honest or worthwhile to say.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Just using your "logic" applied to the First Amendment


“Logic“ is code in the Trump world for, you’re just effin guessing and groping at straws.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And if you believe that then it would apply to ALL amendments including the first therefore no electronic media would be protected under the free speech provision,


Wrong. “Arms” is a term used in the constitution is clearly defined and enumerated upon by subsequent rulings.
AAMOF, Heller  clearly lays down a framework of restrictions for only those persons who are qualified. There VERY FEW persons who can legally posses a handgun in DC.. Any state is allowed to do exactly what DC does to this day.



The modes of communication by the press or anyone expressing himself is mearly restricted to non violence and on or in a public way by the SC.  The modes by SC rulings clearly are not restricted. So your comments are irrelevant.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wrong, because the constitutions does not refer to any particular mode of communications…it does with the 2a. It specifically  says “arms”. It’s your choice. You can’t have it both ways.


There is no specific type of arm mentioned in the Second Amendment

Arms can mean swords, rifles, handguns, canon etc.  The second does not say muskets


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> There is no specific type of arm mentioned in the Second Amendment





Dagosa said:


> “Logic“ is code in the Trump world for, you’re just effin guessing and groping at straws.


FYI I didn't vote for Trump.

Personally I think he's a fucking idiot just like you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> And you lick your presidents ring piece.


That bastard? I wouldn't piss on him to put out the fire if he was on fire.


----------

