A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[ABikerSailor]

If it was such a good idea then, why is it such a bad idea now? If the Brady bill had still been in effect, then maybe the mass shootings where the shooters had use of up to 100 rounds before reloading wouldn't have happened.

If the Patriot Act was such a good idea then, why is it such a bad idea now? Because ideas born from panic are usually emotional and not logical.

Actually, it took several years for it to get passed, and if you read what is in there, it's actually pretty common sense legislation.

The only ones that opposed it? The NRA.

 

[2aguy]

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything "metaphorical" about the Constitution. It was the framework around which the nation was formed and serves as the supreme law that governs the government (ie "ruling class). It is designed to make the average citizen the actual ruling class and gun rights are there to enforce and defend the Constitution (not the government) .

Sheep Goosestepping Behind Chickenhawks

If you say so, faithfully repeating your Masters' fairy tales. You are a mind slave of the very ruling class that tells you that a document controlled by their own interpretations of it protects you from them.

No dumbass, it's what protects them form me right up until they try to be my master in more just their deluded dreams.
Who left the gate open and let all the communists out? I'm a Vietnam vet. I know interesting ways to deal with communists.

Epitaph on the Wall: PROUD TO DIE TAKING A RICH KID'S PLACE

All your Right Wing chickenhawk heroes had rich Daddies who got them to weasel out of serving in Vietnam. Real patriots would have formed up armed at prep-school graduations and marched the spoiled brats right over to the active-duty Induction Station. I don't care if you got a Medal of Honor in Vietnam; if you supported Dubya's privilege to get out of having to fight there, YOU HAVE NO HONOR.

We don't need a ruling class like the Clintons.

What we need is a system where if you don't pay the bills you don't get to make the rules.

Sound fair?

Would that include Trump? He hasn't paid any of the bills (taxes) in a very long time. If what you say is the way it should be, then why is Trump trying to be president?

He hasn't paid more in taxes than most people make in a life time.......his businesses have also created 10s of thousands of jobs providing a living for all of those people......

Hilary.....used her political offices to become a billionaire...and stole money from Haitian relief efforts....

 

[2aguy]

If it was such a good idea then, why is it such a bad idea now? If the Brady bill had still been in effect, then maybe the mass shootings where the shooters had use of up to 100 rounds before reloading wouldn't have happened.

If the Patriot Act was such a good idea then, why is it such a bad idea now? Because ideas born from panic are usually emotional and not logical.

Actually, it took several years for it to get passed, and if you read what is in there, it's actually pretty common sense legislation.

The only ones that opposed it? The NRA.

Asswipe...the ACLU opposed it too....

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually, it took several years for it to get passed, and if you read what is in there, it's actually pretty common sense legislation.

The only ones that opposed it? The NRA.

Correct it took time to pass. Longer than the Patriot Act, but still, IMHO, as wrong.

Incorrect about the NRA, brother. I, among many others also opposed it. Just as many good Americans opposed the Patriot Act and 2003 war in Iraq despite a majority of Congressional Republicans and Democrats supporting both.

 

[Divine Wind]

He hasn't paid more in taxes than most people make in a life time.......his businesses have also created 10s of thousands of jobs providing a living for all of those people......

Hilary.....used her political offices to become a billionaire...and stole money from Haitian relief efforts....

Admittedly, there are a lot of pros and cons to Trump's years as a businessman. Still, most of the money is in his pocket, not American citizens. That's fine, but just wanted to set the record straight.

As for Hillary, all of her money and Bill's is worth about $110M. No where close to being a billionaire.

 

[2aguy]

He hasn't paid more in taxes than most people make in a life time.......his businesses have also created 10s of thousands of jobs providing a living for all of those people......

Hilary.....used her political offices to become a billionaire...and stole money from Haitian relief efforts....

Admittedly, there are a lot of pros and cons to Trump's years as a businessman. Still, most of the money is in his pocket, not American citizens. That's fine, but just wanted to set the record straight.

As for Hillary, all of her money and Bill's is worth about $110M. No where close to being a billionaire.

The money is in the foundation........investing at low tax rates and making them rich....

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, there is no collective right. You don't understand what you're reading.

The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times.

Okay, No Justice Bryer quotes allowed, but please post a quote from the constitution where in spicifically says only organized Milita can have guns?



The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

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.


Notice there is nothing about only state milita's being allowd, but also indeviduals.

What? I didn't say only organized militias could have guns.

I think you need to go read what I wrote.

Did. You said there was no mention of an individual's right to have guns, and opinion that gets tossed out there by ieftists even since the news said Justice Bryer put it in his descent when the court opinion came down in favor of the 2nd and in devi duel rights to own guns. You need to go back and read what you said because you implied that only organized militaso are allowed to have guns, when nothing of the sort is in the 2nd. At best, it says milita and individuals are covered. You implied there is no individual right to own fire arms.

Can you point out to me where I said there i no mention of an individual's right to have guns?

I mean, I was talking about the right to BEAR ARMS. The right to have a gun is the right to KEEP arms. I mean, you're talking about something completely different for some unknown reason.

So, again, READ WHAT I WROTE>

You said this,

You- "The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times."

The second amendment says nothing of the sort.

Yes it does. It says "the right to bear arms".

As I've already shown. The founding fathers used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's here. This is the meaning of "bear arms".

 

[jon_berzerk]

Okay, No Justice Bryer quotes allowed, but please post a quote from the constitution where in spicifically says only organized Milita can have guns?



The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

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.


Notice there is nothing about only state milita's being allowd, but also indeviduals.

What? I didn't say only organized militias could have guns.

I think you need to go read what I wrote.

Did. You said there was no mention of an individual's right to have guns, and opinion that gets tossed out there by ieftists even since the news said Justice Bryer put it in his descent when the court opinion came down in favor of the 2nd and in devi duel rights to own guns. You need to go back and read what you said because you implied that only organized militaso are allowed to have guns, when nothing of the sort is in the 2nd. At best, it says milita and individuals are covered. You implied there is no individual right to own fire arms.

Can you point out to me where I said there i no mention of an individual's right to have guns?

I mean, I was talking about the right to BEAR ARMS. The right to have a gun is the right to KEEP arms. I mean, you're talking about something completely different for some unknown reason.

So, again, READ WHAT I WROTE>

You said this,

You- "The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times."

The second amendment says nothing of the sort.

Yes it does. It says "the right to bear arms".

As I've already shown. The founding fathers used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's here. This is the meaning of "bear arms".

dont what you are trying to prove

bear arms according to the second is the right of the people

 

[2aguy]

Okay, No Justice Bryer quotes allowed, but please post a quote from the constitution where in spicifically says only organized Milita can have guns?



The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

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.


Notice there is nothing about only state milita's being allowd, but also indeviduals.

What? I didn't say only organized militias could have guns.

I think you need to go read what I wrote.

Did. You said there was no mention of an individual's right to have guns, and opinion that gets tossed out there by ieftists even since the news said Justice Bryer put it in his descent when the court opinion came down in favor of the 2nd and in devi duel rights to own guns. You need to go back and read what you said because you implied that only organized militaso are allowed to have guns, when nothing of the sort is in the 2nd. At best, it says milita and individuals are covered. You implied there is no individual right to own fire arms.

Can you point out to me where I said there i no mention of an individual's right to have guns?

I mean, I was talking about the right to BEAR ARMS. The right to have a gun is the right to KEEP arms. I mean, you're talking about something completely different for some unknown reason.

So, again, READ WHAT I WROTE>

You said this,

You- "The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times."

The second amendment says nothing of the sort.

Yes it does. It says "the right to bear arms".

As I've already shown. The founding fathers used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's here. This is the meaning of "bear arms".

Wrong.....bearing arms is an individual right...always has been, always will be.......you can lie and distort all you want....that is all you have....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually you need guns to give yourself the siege mentality that so many people love. The govt is after you, always after you, so you need your guns to fight those demons in your head.

Don't come after your rights, go after the rights of gay people, women, black people, Muslims, anyone but you, right?

Incorrect. It appears all you need are pressure cookers and a few household chemicals. When do you people plan on banning those?

Well, many of those people don't have the ability to figure out how to make those weapons. Guns are good, they come ready made.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, No Justice Bryer quotes allowed, but please post a quote from the constitution where in spicifically says only organized Milita can have guns?



The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

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.


Notice there is nothing about only state milita's being allowd, but also indeviduals.

What? I didn't say only organized militias could have guns.

I think you need to go read what I wrote.

Did. You said there was no mention of an individual's right to have guns, and opinion that gets tossed out there by ieftists even since the news said Justice Bryer put it in his descent when the court opinion came down in favor of the 2nd and in devi duel rights to own guns. You need to go back and read what you said because you implied that only organized militaso are allowed to have guns, when nothing of the sort is in the 2nd. At best, it says milita and individuals are covered. You implied there is no individual right to own fire arms.

Can you point out to me where I said there i no mention of an individual's right to have guns?

I mean, I was talking about the right to BEAR ARMS. The right to have a gun is the right to KEEP arms. I mean, you're talking about something completely different for some unknown reason.

So, again, READ WHAT I WROTE>

You said this,

You- "The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times."

The second amendment says nothing of the sort.

Yes it does. It says "the right to bear arms".

As I've already shown. The founding fathers used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's here. This is the meaning of "bear arms".

Yeah...that link has nothing to do with the right to bear arms...but thanks for the discussion of religious groups and militias....

 

[9thIDdoc]

You know, we had a law in place that already limited the amount of ammo you could send downrange before you had to reload. It was enacted and passed during the Reagan administration.

It was called the Brady Bill.

Why can't we go back to that? I think that the repeal of that was unnecessary, especially in light of the fact Reagan was shot.

Why do we need it? Because a crazed rich kid in love with an actress shot a couple people? Why punish the entire citizenry for the actions of a nut job? Reagan also closed the mental institutions. Why aren't you bitching about that?

If it was such a good idea then, why is it such a bad idea now? If the Brady bill had still been in effect, then maybe the mass shootings where the shooters had use of up to 100 rounds before reloading wouldn't have happened.

Because it wasn't ever a good idea and after 10 years it had accomplished absolutely nothing positive. The basic problem remains the same; people who wish to engage in criminal behavior don't abide by the law. Shooting people was already against the law and remains so. Single-shot weapons can be quite deadly in any case.

 

[Old Rocks]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. And the Supreme Court has stated that it has the power to control the type of gun that is available to the civilian population. If we keep seeing the military style guns used for multiple killings, we will see them controlled.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, we had a law in place that already limited the amount of ammo you could send downrange before you had to reload. It was enacted and passed during the Reagan administration.

It was called the Brady Bill.

Why can't we go back to that? I think that the repeal of that was unnecessary, especially in light of the fact Reagan was shot.

Why do we need it? Because a crazed rich kid in love with an actress shot a couple people? Why punish the entire citizenry for the actions of a nut job? Reagan also closed the mental institutions. Why aren't you bitching about that?

If it was such a good idea then, why is it such a bad idea now? If the Brady bill had still been in effect, then maybe the mass shootings where the shooters had use of up to 100 rounds before reloading wouldn't have happened.

Because it wasn't ever a good idea and after 10 years it had accomplished absolutely nothing positive. The basic problem remains the same; people who wish to engage in criminal behavior don't abide by the law. Shooting people was already against the law and remains so. Single-shot weapons can be quite deadly in any case.

You're right, single shot weapons CAN be quite deadly.

So, if that's true (which it is), why do you need to send 30 to 100 rounds downrange before reloading?

 

[TNHarley]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. And the Supreme Court has stated that it has the power to control the type of gun that is available to the civilian population. If we keep seeing the military style guns used for multiple killings, we will see them controlled.

If our SC wasn't political activists, I would agree.
Look at HIllary.. She stated at the debates she wants hacks. Shit aint right. Aint been for a WHILE.

 

[Divine Wind]

The money is in the foundation........investing at low tax rates and making them rich....

Nonetheless, and this isn't a slam against Trump per se, the fact so much wealth is being retained by a very small percentage of Americans while the Middle Class has continued to barely tread water should not be lost on most Americans. The Tinkle Down system doesn't work. OTOH, neither does the Tax-and-Spend philosophy of the Democrats.

A few years back, Heritage and other conservative websites pushed the Laffer Curve. I agree with the idea, but what too many conservatives forget is that there is a backside of that curve; where the tax rate is too low to sustain necessary functions of our nation. IMHO, we're on the backside of that curve now.

 

[Divine Wind]

You know, we had a law in place that already limited the amount of ammo you could send downrange before you had to reload. It was enacted and passed during the Reagan administration.

It was called the Brady Bill.

Why can't we go back to that? I think that the repeal of that was unnecessary, especially in light of the fact Reagan was shot.

Why do we need it? Because a crazed rich kid in love with an actress shot a couple people? Why punish the entire citizenry for the actions of a nut job? Reagan also closed the mental institutions. Why aren't you bitching about that?

If it was such a good idea then, why is it such a bad idea now? If the Brady bill had still been in effect, then maybe the mass shootings where the shooters had use of up to 100 rounds before reloading wouldn't have happened.

Because it wasn't ever a good idea and after 10 years it had accomplished absolutely nothing positive. The basic problem remains the same; people who wish to engage in criminal behavior don't abide by the law. Shooting people was already against the law and remains so. Single-shot weapons can be quite deadly in any case.

You're right, single shot weapons CAN be quite deadly.

So, if that's true (which it is), why do you need to send 30 to 100 rounds downrange before reloading?

Why not? What will you limiting my magazines to 10 shots do to stop mentally ill killers, terrorists or other criminals from illegally doing what is already against the law?

 

[Divine Wind]

Well, many of those people don't have the ability to figure out how to make those weapons. Guns are good, they come ready made.

Sorry, dude, but that info is on the Internet. The truth is that most people have no desire to make those weapons just like most gun-owners have no desire to kill anyone except in self-defense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, many of those people don't have the ability to figure out how to make those weapons. Guns are good, they come ready made.

Sorry, dude, but that info is on the Internet. The truth is that most people have no desire to make those weapons just like most gun-owners have no desire to kill anyone except in self-defense.

It is. Then again I tell someone "the 2A is an individual right" and the response back is "why would you say the 2A isn't an individual right?" sort of thing. Some people just ain't bright enough to be able to read, let alone follow instructions.

 

[Brain357]

You know, we had a law in place that already limited the amount of ammo you could send downrange before you had to reload. It was enacted and passed during the Reagan administration.

It was called the Brady Bill.

Why can't we go back to that? I think that the repeal of that was unnecessary, especially in light of the fact Reagan was shot.

Why do we need it? Because a crazed rich kid in love with an actress shot a couple people? Why punish the entire citizenry for the actions of a nut job? Reagan also closed the mental institutions. Why aren't you bitching about that?

If it was such a good idea then, why is it such a bad idea now? If the Brady bill had still been in effect, then maybe the mass shootings where the shooters had use of up to 100 rounds before reloading wouldn't have happened.

Because it wasn't ever a good idea and after 10 years it had accomplished absolutely nothing positive. The basic problem remains the same; people who wish to engage in criminal behavior don't abide by the law. Shooting people was already against the law and remains so. Single-shot weapons can be quite deadly in any case.

You're right, single shot weapons CAN be quite deadly.

So, if that's true (which it is), why do you need to send 30 to 100 rounds downrange before reloading?

Why not? What will you limiting my magazines to 10 shots do to stop mentally ill killers, terrorists or other criminals from illegally doing what is already against the law?

Reloading often sure would have slowed down the Orlando shooter.