Attention, gun control supporters:

[bigrebnc1775]

New restrictions on guns and magazines will be forthcoming. It is going to happen

Gun owners will bitch and life will go on

Those weapons you are talking about according too Miller vs. US and Lewis vs US are protected by the second amendment.

 

[Ernie S.]

Easy

You will still be allowed to have guns.......just not as many types

sucks don't it?

Here ya go, fool.

Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

The courts have never had a problem with restricting weapons that are a threat to public safety

30 round magazines are a threat to no one. Scary looking guns are only a threat to your masculinity.

 

[rightwinger]

New restrictions on guns and magazines will be forthcoming. It is going to happen

Gun owners will bitch and life will go on

I'll ask again... How do you propose to enforce those restrictions that does not violate the Constitution? If I already own those items that scare you... How will they be Constitutionally taken away from me? Simple question.

We already restrict access to certain weapons and it complies with the Constitution

Looks like the list will get bigger

You will probably not have to turn in what you have. But WalMart will no longer sell them and they will no longer be produced

 

[rightwinger]

New restrictions on guns and magazines will be forthcoming. It is going to happen

Gun owners will bitch and life will go on

Those weapons you are talking about according too Miller vs. US and Lewis vs US are protected by the second amendment.

Please stop trying to dazzle us with your constitutional opinions= FAIL

 

[bigrebnc1775]

New restrictions on guns and magazines will be forthcoming. It is going to happen

Gun owners will bitch and life will go on

I'll ask again... How do you propose to enforce those restrictions that does not violate the Constitution? If I already own those items that scare you... How will they be Constitutionally taken away from me? Simple question.

We already restrict access to certain weapons and it complies with the Constitution

Looks like the list will get bigger

You will probably not have to turn in what you have. But WalMart will no longer sell them and they will no longer be produced

You are correct the courts have restricted certain types of weapons. They must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and are expected to be supplied by the private citizen and be the kind in common use at the time. Too be protected by the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

New restrictions on guns and magazines will be forthcoming. It is going to happen

Gun owners will bitch and life will go on

Those weapons you are talking about according too Miller vs. US and Lewis vs US are protected by the second amendment.

Please stop trying to dazzle us with your constitutional opinions= FAIL

Please stop acting has if you know what you are talking about.

 

[tjvh]

New restrictions on guns and magazines will be forthcoming. It is going to happen

Gun owners will bitch and life will go on

I'll ask again... How do you propose to enforce those restrictions that does not violate the Constitution? If I already own those items that scare you... How will they be Constitutionally taken away from me? Simple question.

We already restrict access to certain weapons and it complies with the Constitution

Looks like the list will get bigger

You will probably not have to turn in what you have. But WalMart will no longer sell them and they will no longer be produced

Probably? Please answer my question.

 

[GuyPinestra]

And the problem isn't that anyone is suggesting a complete ban...just the totally unnecessary military style weapons which are only designed for one purpose....to kill humans.

What constitutes an &#8216;unnecessary military style weapon&#8217;?

Read what I posted. Weapons which have no other purpose than to kill human beings. What the fuck has this nation turned into? A bunch of lilly livered cowards who have to display their testosterone by carrying a deadly weapon when they take their family on a picnic, go shopping or to church. The Republican party has turned into a god damned joke and if they don't catch on they're history.

That would be all of the guns EVER produced, less .22's and shotguns.

And they'll do in a pinch.

You really think you can pull that off?

 

[Ernie S.]

New restrictions on guns and magazines will be forthcoming. It is going to happen

Gun owners will bitch and life will go on

There is not a chance in hell that the House will pass anything like the Assault Weapons Ban.

An Executive Order would be in SCOTUS in 5 minutes.

 

[Contumacious]

New restrictions on guns and magazines will be forthcoming. It is going to happen

Gun owners will bitch and life will go on

I'll ask again... How do you propose to enforce those restrictions that does not violate the Constitution? If I already own those items that scare you... How will they be Constitutionally taken away from me? Simple question.

We already restrict access to certain weapons and it complies with the Constitution

Looks like the list will get bigger

You will probably not have to turn in what you have. But WalMart will no longer sell them and they will no longer be produced

I see, so is Feinstein also going to abolish the blackmarket?

.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

And the problem isn't that anyone is suggesting a complete ban...just the totally unnecessary military style weapons which are only designed for one purpose....to kill humans.

What constitutes an ‘unnecessary military style weapon’?

Read what I posted. Weapons which have no other purpose than to kill human beings. What the fuck has this nation turned into? A bunch of lilly livered cowards who have to display their testosterone by carrying a deadly weapon when they take their family on a picnic, go shopping or to church. The Republican party has turned into a god damned joke and if they don't catch on they're history.

What the fuck is the purpose of a citizen militia, if not to kill humans, idiot" The second amendment is in place to guarantee citizens will be able to defend themselves from foreign invaders or a repressive government.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'll ask again... How do you propose to enforce those restrictions that does not violate the Constitution? If I already own those items that scare you... How will they be Constitutionally taken away from me? Simple question.

We already restrict access to certain weapons and it complies with the Constitution

Looks like the list will get bigger

You will probably not have to turn in what you have. But WalMart will no longer sell them and they will no longer be produced

I see, so is Feinstein also going to abolish the blackmarket?

.

.

She'll make it illegal.............. Wait! that shit ain't worked yet.... Lets pass something that will make it look like we care. The lemmings will love us.

 

[Cammmpbell]

What constitutes an ‘unnecessary military style weapon’?

Read what I posted. Weapons which have no other purpose than to kill human beings. What the fuck has this nation turned into? A bunch of lilly livered cowards who have to display their testosterone by carrying a deadly weapon when they take their family on a picnic, go shopping or to church. The Republican party has turned into a god damned joke and if they don't catch on they're history.

That would be all of the guns EVER produced, less .22's and shotguns.

And they'll do in a pinch.

You really think you can pull that off?

That's right wing NRA bullshit you are spouting. Do away with army assault type weapons and extended capactity magazines. In all the recent mass killings without those dozens if not hundreds of lives would have been saved. If you want to be in a war so goddamned bad join the military or one of the military sub contractors and go to Afghanistan. I feel sure that if you actually are any good with one of those weapons they can find a place for you.

 

[jtpr312]

Screw that illogical question.

So, you have no rational answer. Not at all surprising.

Stop the manufacturing and sales of assault type, rapid fire, military style weapons which have no useful purpose other than to kill humans.

Stop the manufacturing and sales of extended capacity magazines for any kind of semi automatic weapon. Put a high tax on any ammunition and treat it just like the sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol........for starters.

Only the Right Wingers, criminals and the insane want to do nothing.......oh, I forgot the NRA.

The manufacture and sale of methamphetimine, cocaine, LSD, and heroin are illegal.

But you can still get them.

The search for rational answers continues...

Are you really looking for rational dave? It seems you are looking for a way to use the absurd, the law of the jungle, anarchy and the paranoid slippery slope to avoid the rational.

Rational people in a society try to write laws that limit the damage that can be inflicted on society, without severely limiting the rights and privileges we all covet and enjoy.

The right to bear arms SHOULD be afforded to every law abiding citizen. But we should all be in favor of passing laws to prevent someone who is not a law abiding citizen from gaining access to a firearm.

We have laws that make it illegal for a minor to drive a car. When you are old enough to drive, you have to pass a written test showing you understand the rules of the road. And you have to pass a road test to show you can safely operate a motor vehicle. But even after you meet all those requirements, we still have speed limits. We still have laws that make it a crime to drink and drive.

I anticipate you will argue that driving is a privilege and owning a firearm is a right. But no right is absolute. If the 2nd amendment were absolute, then criminals, and the mentally ill should be eligible...they are NOT, nor should they be eligible.

Like you said, driving is a priviledge NOT a right so your comparrison is worthless and we ALREADY have hundreds of of laws restricing and regulating firearms in this nation we don't need anymore.

 

[Bfgrn]

So, you have no rational answer. Not at all surprising.

The manufacture and sale of methamphetimine, cocaine, LSD, and heroin are illegal.

But you can still get them.

The search for rational answers continues...

Are you really looking for rational dave? It seems you are looking for a way to use the absurd, the law of the jungle, anarchy and the paranoid slippery slope to avoid the rational.

Rational people in a society try to write laws that limit the damage that can be inflicted on society, without severely limiting the rights and privileges we all covet and enjoy.

The right to bear arms SHOULD be afforded to every law abiding citizen. But we should all be in favor of passing laws to prevent someone who is not a law abiding citizen from gaining access to a firearm.

We have laws that make it illegal for a minor to drive a car. When you are old enough to drive, you have to pass a written test showing you understand the rules of the road. And you have to pass a road test to show you can safely operate a motor vehicle. But even after you meet all those requirements, we still have speed limits. We still have laws that make it a crime to drink and drive.

I anticipate you will argue that driving is a privilege and owning a firearm is a right. But no right is absolute. If the 2nd amendment were absolute, then criminals, and the mentally ill should be eligible...they are NOT, nor should they be eligible.

Of course I'm looking for rational answers. Perhaps you can explain this dichotomy:

1. We need more laws to keep guns out of the hands on criminals.

2. We know criminals do not obey the law.

As citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherant dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, what ever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

 

[Bfgrn]

So, you have no rational answer. Not at all surprising.

The manufacture and sale of methamphetimine, cocaine, LSD, and heroin are illegal.

But you can still get them.

The search for rational answers continues...

Are you really looking for rational dave? It seems you are looking for a way to use the absurd, the law of the jungle, anarchy and the paranoid slippery slope to avoid the rational.

Rational people in a society try to write laws that limit the damage that can be inflicted on society, without severely limiting the rights and privileges we all covet and enjoy.

The right to bear arms SHOULD be afforded to every law abiding citizen. But we should all be in favor of passing laws to prevent someone who is not a law abiding citizen from gaining access to a firearm.

We have laws that make it illegal for a minor to drive a car. When you are old enough to drive, you have to pass a written test showing you understand the rules of the road. And you have to pass a road test to show you can safely operate a motor vehicle. But even after you meet all those requirements, we still have speed limits. We still have laws that make it a crime to drink and drive.

I anticipate you will argue that driving is a privilege and owning a firearm is a right. But no right is absolute. If the 2nd amendment were absolute, then criminals, and the mentally ill should be eligible...they are NOT, nor should they be eligible.

Like you said, driving is a priviledge NOT a right so your comparrison is worthless and we ALREADY have hundreds of of laws restricing and regulating firearms in this nation we don't need anymore.

So you support a criminal's right to be able to walk into the safe setting of a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, and buy what ever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley?

 

[jtpr312]

Are you really looking for rational dave? It seems you are looking for a way to use the absurd, the law of the jungle, anarchy and the paranoid slippery slope to avoid the rational.

Rational people in a society try to write laws that limit the damage that can be inflicted on society, without severely limiting the rights and privileges we all covet and enjoy.

The right to bear arms SHOULD be afforded to every law abiding citizen. But we should all be in favor of passing laws to prevent someone who is not a law abiding citizen from gaining access to a firearm.

We have laws that make it illegal for a minor to drive a car. When you are old enough to drive, you have to pass a written test showing you understand the rules of the road. And you have to pass a road test to show you can safely operate a motor vehicle. But even after you meet all those requirements, we still have speed limits. We still have laws that make it a crime to drink and drive.

I anticipate you will argue that driving is a privilege and owning a firearm is a right. But no right is absolute. If the 2nd amendment were absolute, then criminals, and the mentally ill should be eligible...they are NOT, nor should they be eligible.

Like you said, driving is a priviledge NOT a right so your comparrison is worthless and we ALREADY have hundreds of of laws restricing and regulating firearms in this nation we don't need anymore.

So you support a criminal's right to be able to walk into the safe setting of a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, and buy what ever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley?

I support the right of the people to execute criminals who illegally and violently use a firearm to commit a crime. Most firearms deaths are caused by criminals with long and extensive violent criminal records, yet we keep releasing them back into society, thanks to the liberal mindset. We can't keep letting these violent scumbags out of our prisons then whine when we look at our firearms related crime statistics. The liberals don't want to execute violent repeat offenders so they decide the way to curb gun violence is to restrict the law abiding citizens means of obtaining them or carrying them. I support the rights of society to forcibily commit people who are deemed mentaly unstable and a threat to their fellow citizens. Liberals have made this almost impossible to do, so instead they decide the way to curb gun violence is to restrict the law abiding, SANE citizen's rights. Our most infamous mass shooting, the one that got everyone talking about the problem was Columbine, and that happened in the middle of the Clinton era bans, and it wasn't the only one, proving bans have no effect on mass shootings. I support the rights of society to take away the rights of ANY person who has proven themselves to be a danger to society, but I also support the thought that you don't punish the innocent for the actions of the depraved. As for going to gun shows and buying whatever you want with no background check, that's a myth given us by the gun grabbing socialists in this nation. Every dealer must run a background check on anyone that purchases a firearm, the SAME EXAXCT check that is run if you go to their shops, and as for private citizens, you can regulate their sales the same way you can regulate a private citizen selling heroin, cocaine or meth and we have seen how well the anti-drug sales bans work haven't we?

 

[Bfgrn]

Like you said, driving is a priviledge NOT a right so your comparrison is worthless and we ALREADY have hundreds of of laws restricing and regulating firearms in this nation we don't need anymore.

So you support a criminal's right to be able to walk into the safe setting of a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, and buy what ever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley?

I support the right of the people to execute criminals who illegally and violently use a firearm to commit a crime. Most firearms deaths are caused by criminals with long and extensive violent criminal records, yet we keep releasing them back into society, thanks to the liberal mindset. We can't keep letting these violent scumbags out of our prisons then whine when we look at our firearms related crime statistics. The liberals don't want to execute violent repeat offenders so they decide the way to curb gun violence is to restrict the law abiding citizens means of obtaining them or carrying them. I support the rights of society to forcibily commit people who are deemed mentaly unstable and a threat to their fellow citizens. Liberals have made this almost impossible to do, so instead they decide the way to curb gun violence is to restrict the law abiding, SANE citizen's rights. Our most infamous mass shooting, the one that got everyone talking about the problem was Columbine, and that happened in the middle of the Clinton era bans, and it wasn't the only one, proving bans have no effect on mass shootings. I support the rights of society to take away the rights of ANY person who has proven themselves to be a danger to society, but I also support the thought that you don't punish the innocent for the actions of the depraved. As for going to gun shows and buying whatever you want with no background check, that's a myth given us by the gun grabbing socialists in this nation. Every dealer must run a background check on anyone that purchases a firearm, the SAME EXAXCT check that is run if you go to their shops, and as for private citizens, you can regulate their sales the same way you can regulate a private citizen selling heroin, cocaine or meth and we have seen how well the anti-drug sales bans work haven't we?

Obfuscation. You are avoiding my question and making false accusations.

jtpr312, do YOU support a criminal's right to be able to walk into the safe setting of a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, and buy what ever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley?

 

[jtpr312]

So you support a criminal's right to be able to walk into the safe setting of a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, and buy what ever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley?

I support the right of the people to execute criminals who illegally and violently use a firearm to commit a crime. Most firearms deaths are caused by criminals with long and extensive violent criminal records, yet we keep releasing them back into society, thanks to the liberal mindset. We can't keep letting these violent scumbags out of our prisons then whine when we look at our firearms related crime statistics. The liberals don't want to execute violent repeat offenders so they decide the way to curb gun violence is to restrict the law abiding citizens means of obtaining them or carrying them. I support the rights of society to forcibily commit people who are deemed mentaly unstable and a threat to their fellow citizens. Liberals have made this almost impossible to do, so instead they decide the way to curb gun violence is to restrict the law abiding, SANE citizen's rights. Our most infamous mass shooting, the one that got everyone talking about the problem was Columbine, and that happened in the middle of the Clinton era bans, and it wasn't the only one, proving bans have no effect on mass shootings. I support the rights of society to take away the rights of ANY person who has proven themselves to be a danger to society, but I also support the thought that you don't punish the innocent for the actions of the depraved. As for going to gun shows and buying whatever you want with no background check, that's a myth given us by the gun grabbing socialists in this nation. Every dealer must run a background check on anyone that purchases a firearm, the SAME EXAXCT check that is run if you go to their shops, and as for private citizens, you can regulate their sales the same way you can regulate a private citizen selling heroin, cocaine or meth and we have seen how well the anti-drug sales bans work haven't we?

Obfuscation. You are avoiding my question and making false accusations.

jtpr312, do YOU support a criminal's right to be able to walk into the safe setting of a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, and buy what ever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley?

I didn't avoid your question, I ignored it as it is based on nothing I stated or implied and how you inferred that from what I wrote tells me you're either reading comprehension challenged or you have an agenda that you're promoting by asking asinine rhetorical questions that you already know the answer to. Furthermore, please point to any false accusations I made as everything I stated is based on supportable facts and evidence I can easily provide.

 

[Bfgrn]

I support the right of the people to execute criminals who illegally and violently use a firearm to commit a crime. Most firearms deaths are caused by criminals with long and extensive violent criminal records, yet we keep releasing them back into society, thanks to the liberal mindset. We can't keep letting these violent scumbags out of our prisons then whine when we look at our firearms related crime statistics. The liberals don't want to execute violent repeat offenders so they decide the way to curb gun violence is to restrict the law abiding citizens means of obtaining them or carrying them. I support the rights of society to forcibily commit people who are deemed mentaly unstable and a threat to their fellow citizens. Liberals have made this almost impossible to do, so instead they decide the way to curb gun violence is to restrict the law abiding, SANE citizen's rights. Our most infamous mass shooting, the one that got everyone talking about the problem was Columbine, and that happened in the middle of the Clinton era bans, and it wasn't the only one, proving bans have no effect on mass shootings. I support the rights of society to take away the rights of ANY person who has proven themselves to be a danger to society, but I also support the thought that you don't punish the innocent for the actions of the depraved. As for going to gun shows and buying whatever you want with no background check, that's a myth given us by the gun grabbing socialists in this nation. Every dealer must run a background check on anyone that purchases a firearm, the SAME EXAXCT check that is run if you go to their shops, and as for private citizens, you can regulate their sales the same way you can regulate a private citizen selling heroin, cocaine or meth and we have seen how well the anti-drug sales bans work haven't we?

Obfuscation. You are avoiding my question and making false accusations.

jtpr312, do YOU support a criminal's right to be able to walk into the safe setting of a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, and buy what ever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley?

I didn't avoid your question, I ignored it as it is based on nothing I stated or implied and how you inferred that from what I wrote tells me you're either reading comprehension challenged or you have an agenda that you're promoting by asking asinine rhetorical questions that you already know the answer to. Furthermore, please point to any false accusations I made as everything I stated is based on supportable facts and evidence I can easily provide.

Go back and re-read the posts. You said: "we ALREADY have hundreds of of laws restricing and regulating firearms in this nation we don't need anymore"

But there is a loophole in one of those laws that allows a criminal or a mentally ill person to be able to buy weapons at gun shows without a background check. It THAT OK with you?

The other crap you said is false.

No one who commits a crime that would qualify as being punishable by execution, or violent repeat offenders are released from prison. Liberals have no 'mindset' to release violent repeat offenders into society.

Liberal New York State has a involuntary commitment law. But, there are a number of liberty issues with involuntary commitment, but you right wing 'individual liberty' types are totally obtuse to the dangers they create for innocent people.