A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[9thIDdoc]

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.

"The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says"

No, the Constitution says what it says and the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to change one word of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights. Local governments are allowed some authority to regulate firearms but cannot legally infringe on the right "..to keep and bear...". Exactly where that line is drawn is a matter for the courts.

 

[Divine Wind]

dont what you are trying to prove

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

Agreed about a right of the people. We're seeing the concerns some Founders had about even writing a Bill of Rights into the Constitution come to fruition. The LW meme is that our rights come from the Constitution and, in their opinion, by rewriting the Constitution they can rewrite our inalienable rights.

As for what frigidweirdo and other anti-gunners are trying to prove is that the Second Amendment means only a "militia" has a right to have guns. Since the "militia", in their opinion, is the National Guard, there is no need for private ownership of firearms. This is a tacit admission on their part of their larger goal; banning and confiscation of privately owned firearms.

 

[Divine Wind]

Reloading often sure would have slowed down the Orlando shooter.

Correct and banning pressure cookers would have saved lives in Boston. What's your point? That all law-abiding citizens should be penalized because of a few terrorist nutjobs?

 

[Brain357]

Reloading often sure would have slowed down the Orlando shooter.

Correct and banning pressure cookers would have saved lives in Boston. What's your point? That all law-abiding citizens should be penalized because of a few terrorist nutjobs?

Making bombs is illegal and people can be caught trying to make them. Sometimes bombs don't work.

I don't consider it a penalty to take away the ability to quickly and legally become a mass killer. Why do you think people should be able to easily become mass killers?

 

[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.

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?

Who said I did? Might be handy handy in certain circumstances though and and for collection, competition or investment purposes. More importantly who should have authority to restrict my ownership of anything to only what I need and then presume to tell me what I need? I am not prepared to give up the freedom to decide for myself.

 

[jon_berzerk]

dont what you are trying to prove

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

Agreed about a right of the people. We're seeing the concerns some Founders had about even writing a Bill of Rights into the Constitution come to fruition. The LW meme is that our rights come from the Constitution and, in their opinion, by rewriting the Constitution they can rewrite our inalienable rights.

As for what frigidweirdo and other anti-gunners are trying to prove is that the Second Amendment means only a "militia" has a right to have guns. Since the "militia", in their opinion, is the National Guard, there is no need for private ownership of firearms. This is a tacit admission on their part of their larger goal; banning and confiscation of privately owned firearms.

exactly


and then they have the balls to complain about the abusive government

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

Who said I did? Might be handy handy in certain circumstances though and and for collection, competition or investment purposes. More importantly who should have authority to restrict my ownership of anything to only what I need and then presume to tell me what I need? I am not prepared to give up the freedom to decide for myself.

what is handy about a single shot weapon during such end times


is it is " a gun to get a gun" in as much the same way the homemade slam fire is

 

[Flash]

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?

I am not voting for Trump so you can go bark up another tree.

By the way, do you pay any taxes?

If so do you take legal deductions?

You are not one of the greedy little Libtards that think you are entitled to deductions but other people aren't, are you?

Actually, yes, I do pay taxes. They're deducted out of my military retirement every month, and because I was in pay and personnel, I know how to figure my deductions so that at the end of the year, the amount of tax I owe, and the amount of tax I paid in already are pretty much the same.

My average refund is around 1.68 each year.

And................because I'm single, I'm only allowed the deduction for myself and up to whatever the amount is that you can claim for charity without receipts (around 75.00).

So you do pay income taxes and take deductions.

How come it is wrong for you to take legal deductions but not Trump?

Are you special or just greedy?

 

[Flash]

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....

These stupid uneducated low information Libtards bitch about everything except what is really wrong.

For some reason they think it is wrong for Trump to create tremendous wealth actually building things and providing tens of thousands jobs and paying millions of dollars in taxes but it is not wrong for Crooked Hillary to set up a scam charity foundation to launder money she makes from selling government influence.

Of course these Libtards are not exactly the best and brightest, are they?

 

[Crixus]

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.

This is very true. Going y your user name, I'm cofidant you have a good idea what 62gr 5.56 green tip does to flesh. Think that's bad? Try a .58 call 500 gr minle ball from a muzzleloader. Dealing with the "WHY" would be better then just say sit and pander to the base. As it is, mass killings, especially of children is the bread and butter issue for the Democrat party.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"I don't consider it a penalty to take away the ability to quickly and legally become a mass killer. Why do you think people should be able to easily become mass killers?"

Uh...where exactly is it currently legal to be as mass killer?

 

[Brain357]

"I don't consider it a penalty to take away the ability to quickly and legally become a mass killer. Why do you think people should be able to easily become mass killers?"

Uh...where exactly is it currently legal to be as mass killer?

It is legal to buy a semi auto with hi cap magazines. That legally makes you a very capable mass killer. If you chose to use a bomb, making a bomb is illegal. But owning a gun for mass killing is legal.

 

[Crixus]

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?

Because I want to. Really, it's none of your business. Why do you eed the amount of space you have in your house? I figure you are a bike enthusiasts, why would you need a bike over 250 cc's ? You don't need all that power. You are not a professional racer right? Honestly, I think folks who drive bikes faster then 75 are fuccking nuts, but that's their thing and I don't question it even though people on bikes insist on getting g other people killed when their game of "sons of anarchy" go's bad.

 

[Crixus]

Reloading often sure would have slowed down the Orlando shooter.

Correct and banning pressure cookers would have saved lives in Boston. What's your point? That all law-abiding citizens should be penalized because of a few terrorist nutjobs?

The fireworks to. They legal to sell in Boston?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Typical leftist response. What the Supremes say becomes law. There is still no constitutional basis for forcing gay marriage or abortion onto the states. It isn't there so they made it up. You lefties pretend there is no ideology involved if it goes your way.

 

[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?

Because I want to. Really, it's none of your business. Why do you eed the amount of space you have in your house? I figure you are a bike enthusiasts, why would you need a bike over 250 cc's ? You don't need all that power. You are not a professional racer right? Honestly, I think folks who drive bikes faster then 75 are fuccking nuts, but that's their thing and I don't question it even though people on bikes insist on getting g other people killed when their game of "sons of anarchy" go's bad.

Are large houses a favorite weapon of mass killers?

 

[Crixus]

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.

The Internet is much more deadly then guns. Ask Hillery.

 

[Iceweasel]

"I don't consider it a penalty to take away the ability to quickly and legally become a mass killer. Why do you think people should be able to easily become mass killers?"

Uh...where exactly is it currently legal to be as mass killer?

It is legal to buy a semi auto with hi cap magazines. That legally makes you a very capable mass killer. If you chose to use a bomb, making a bomb is illegal. But owning a gun for mass killing is legal.

Having an anus makes you a potential whore too.

 

[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.

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.

Forgetting for a moment that the Constitution doesn't grant rights and going with your logic that it does, are you saying the First Amendment isn't an individual right? That you, personally, don't have freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom of association?

Should you have to register your computer or typewriter with the Federal government? Obtain a permit to start a religion (not talking about tax exemptions) or starting a book club in your home?

 

[2aguy]

Reloading often sure would have slowed down the Orlando shooter.

Correct and banning pressure cookers would have saved lives in Boston. What's your point? That all law-abiding citizens should be penalized because of a few terrorist nutjobs?

Making bombs is illegal and people can be caught trying to make them. Sometimes bombs don't work.

I don't consider it a penalty to take away the ability to quickly and legally become a mass killer. Why do you think people should be able to easily become mass killers?

Gun free zones cause that......disarming the very people who can keep these killers away, or stop them when they appear......and your solution did not work in Europe.....especially Paris, disarming normal people does not stop these crimes...moron.