400 million guns

[multivita-man]

What other Constitutional rights do you want to “tax the shit out of”?
How about voting?

Voting isn't commerce.

 

[Rumpole]

I would never threaten to shoot anyone ...

You'd just shoot them? What are you actually saying?

 

[B. Kidd]

If anyone needs a reminder on why people need the ability to be well armed, just remember that while BLM rioters were pillaging, assaulting, and murdering people in the streets.. multiple leftist police forces retreated, abandoning the people they had sworn to protect.

That’s why it’s appropriate to own an AR 15… we saw the police cower in real time for PR, sensibility reasons… forcing people to protect their lives, families, homes, and businesses from rabid barbarians.

Trust me.
I don't blame the police when City Hall leaves them to flap in the wind.
Adjust accordingly and carry on.

 

[Nostra]

Voting isn't commerce.

So?

 

[multivita-man]

So?

Guns and ammo are taxable; voting isn't. They once were but they were struck down by SCOTUS as discriminatory.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Monster he says!

Based on your standard, it seemed quite appropriate. Me? I’m an adult and understand that tragedies happen in life. I don’t exploit death like you do.

Well, that is especially rich given that you voted twice for that particular criminally corrupt and morally bankrupt charlatan, one Donald J Trump who orchestrated a large-scale, fraudulent scheme to subvert the election and poison confidence in American Democracy in the minds of some 65 million members of the electorate,

Why are you bringing up Trump? Geez, he truly owns people like you.

FYI, your statement is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

I’m sure you think so. Both are societal necessities, both cause deaths. You just seem to not mind one and exploit the other.

 

[ActionJackson]

Are you a criminal?
Because we are only talking about keeping them out of the hands of criminals.
Or maybe you are saying that mass murder is acceptable as long as you don't have to be inconvenienced?

If we were putting criminals to death or giving them long prison sentences the way we should be then they wouldn't be acquiring guns in the first place. But liberal DAs simply slap their wrist and let them out on a signature bond. Smart!

 

[ActionJackson]

Why do you use The 2A to justify mass murder?

I use the 2A to justify stopping mass murders. But I can only do that if I'm armed. Duh!

 

[Rumpole]

In countries run by people like you.

Just know this, marv,

There are more people like me than there are like you.

And we believe, we know, Trump is a disease and more guns do not make us safer.

So, if you have something to say beyond one-liners, say it, otherwise you're talking shit.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

"...Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing
and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --"Matt" (anonymous) from his review of Adam Winkler's 'Gunfight, the Battle Over the Second Amendment in America"

There are some 400 million guns in America, and if guns were making us safer, we'd be the safest place on earth, which America is not.

That is a fact Republicans cannot reconcile.

And to average republican, I guess that for them, they aren't enough.

Guns deaths have taken the lead in children, and this is a fairly recent development. And, please, no crap about 'well, half those deaths are suicide' because,
simply because that stat isn't caused by fewer guns, let's be clear.

So I hope those of you second amendment 'cold dead hands' types are happy.

It sure isn't for the parents of those dead children whose lives have been ruined by your cherished 'second amendment'.

Personally, though America's second amendment was a necessary component of life in the frontiers of the late 18th century when the nation was founded, they could not have foreseen 233 years into the future to know of a modern urban landscape where weapons could kill hundreds of people in a relatively short period of time, that had they known, it is doubtful they would have confined the second amendment's langage to one compound sentence, whose actual meaning continues to be debated to this day.

It's time for a 28th Amendment to update the 2nd, a vertible 2nd Amendment 2.0, as it were, and as to what the new language would be, I'll let you guys duke it out, but it needs to be updated,

It's time.

Cheers,
Rumpole

The tired old "couldn't anticipate" argument. Using that retarded logic the founding Fathers only considered the printed word on paper when the 1st Amendment was written, I mean there is no way they could have foreseen modern forms of communication.

Whats more likely ? An 18th century person anticipating a firearm that fires hundreds of rounds a minute or almost instant communications between continents ? I'm pretty sure they would be impressed by the firearm and consider the internet as witchcraft.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The liberals should all join the NRA.

I am puzzled as to why this has not occurred to them.

Would be about their speed when it comes to hypocrisy.

 

[JusticeHammer]

"...Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing
and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --"Matt" (anonymous) from his review of Adam Winkler's 'Gunfight, the Battle Over the Second Amendment in America"

There are some 400 million guns in America, and if guns were making us safer, we'd be the safest place on earth, which America is not.

That is a fact Republicans cannot reconcile.

And to average republican, I guess that for them, they aren't enough.

Guns deaths have taken the lead in children, and this is a fairly recent development. And, please, no crap about 'well, half those deaths are suicide' because,
simply because that stat isn't caused by fewer guns, let's be clear.

So I hope those of you second amendment 'cold dead hands' types are happy.

It sure isn't for the parents of those dead children whose lives have been ruined by your cherished 'second amendment'.

Personally, though America's second amendment was a necessary component of life in the frontiers of the late 18th century when the nation was founded, they could not have foreseen 233 years into the future to know of a modern urban landscape where weapons could kill hundreds of people in a relatively short period of time, that had they known, it is doubtful they would have confined the second amendment's langage to one compound sentence, whose actual meaning continues to be debated to this day.

It's time for a 28th Amendment to update the 2nd, a vertible 2nd Amendment 2.0, as it were, and as to what the new language would be, I'll let you guys duke it out, but it needs to be updated,

It's time.

Cheers,
Rumpole

A commie pussy crying about guns again.^^^^

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[sparky]

So tell me what is wrong with mandatory FA training in HS, along with community militias ?

~S~

 

[Nostra]

Guns and ammo are taxable; voting isn't. They once were but they were struck down by SCOTUS as discriminatory.

Why can you tax one right, but not another?

 

[multivita-man]

Why can you tax one right, but not another?

Ask the Courts, though who knows, with this Court maybe they'll bring back Jim Crow or slavery again.

 

[marvin martian]

Possibly.
Kind of like drugs.
We don't just throw our hands in the air and say "oh well....shit happens...nothing works...drug laws don't work so why have laws."

Do you think the drug laws are working?

 

[Nostra]

Ask the Courts, though who knows, with this Court maybe they'll bring back Jim Crow or slavery again.

Pretty sure I’m done with your moronic ass,

Buh-bye!

 

[marvin martian]

Ask the Courts, though who knows, with this Court maybe they'll bring back Jim Crow or slavery again.

Ah, the DemoKKKrats' wet dream.

 

[fncceo]

Why can you tax one right, but not another?

Americans have the right to bear arms, if they own them. Since ownership implies a purchase, that purchase can be taxed. However, a cruel and unusual tax, such as $500 per bullet, would be rightly seen as a way to restrict the 2nd Amendment and therefore be Unconstitutional.

Voting, on the other hand, requires no exchange of goods or services and does not require a commercial transaction. Any attempt to tax it therefore would be restrictive.