Biden on Gun Control

[BULLDOG]

Common sense regulation won't effect my gun ownership or use or the ownership and use of any law abiding sane person. I can understand you crazy militia types, with all your conspiracy theory fears being concerned.

You have laws already that the Federal, State and Local agencies refuse to use, so why give you more when LEO will just never enforce them?

Two instances in Florida where LEO failed it duty to enforce laws they had already, so tell us Bully, which new regulations will lower firearm deaths and if they fail to do so what will be your excuse?

Laws against drunk driving don't stop drunk drivers killing people, but they are still worth while.

We already have laws regulating who can and can not buy firearms, so how many more do you need before you realize LEO will never enforce those laws?

I disagree, and we can discuss that in a minute, but for now, are you willing to admit regulation and infringement are not the same?

How can you proclaim we do not have regulations on ownership of firearms and laws preventing criminals from owning them?

I already know what laws you want are red flag laws where your wife can call the sheriff department and make a false claim so she can have your firearms taken from you while you have to pay an attorney to prove your innocences.

You also want laws that will use faulty list like the No Fly list to restrict people who share the same name with someone that is a possible danger to our society and then again they will have to prove through courts they are not that person.

Finally, we have regulations on Local, State and Federal Level and if you are a gun owner you know this, and seeing you do not know thos tell me you do not own a firearm at all...

In the State of Texas I have to pass a background check to buy from a license dealer but not from a private citizen.

Federal law requires this already and need for more laws and why?

Did you know selling a firearm to a known felon or doing a straw purchase is a felony in the State of Texas?

Now you argument is how do you find out if someone is a felon?

Most people that sell their firearms in private usually do so to someone they know.

Yes, you have the gun show loophole but rarely do you deal with a mass shooter from someone who bought their gun from a gun show.

Next, mental health checks can be faked and a doctor could pass you for so much money or fail you if you do not pay them enough or if they dislike you.

In the end your commonsense laws will fail as usual and it is the State choice to regulate firearm sales like California and Illinois do and Texas has it own laws.

Federal Government should have little power over this unless it become a interstate issue...

I won't respond to the complee list of gun nut talking points. Pick one or two.

 

[BULLDOG]

What an absurd question.

Is it?

If you had the choice to repeal the second Amendment would you?

No

Why not?

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

No thank you because this is a open discussion and not for private..

OK.. The short answer is I think it's good to have guns as long as reasonable precautions are followed.

 

[BULLDOG]

Is it?

If you had the choice to repeal the second Amendment would you?

No

Why not?

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

FYI:

Those that bring up the Regulated Milita part should understand in today time it mean your former enlisted members that are in the Reserves or Guard and not the Militia you envision from movies.

As being ex-military ( yes, crazy ain't it ) when I left I did my reserve time also and could have been recalled at any time during war.

So sit there and understand that Active, Reserve and Guard members will be armed and that is what I interpret the Second Amendment Militia clause to mean.

 

[OldLady]

Why not?

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

What part that is missing, makes it dishonest? If anything, it backs up his point.

"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."
Since we no longer have a militia and have no need for one, the right is no longer necessary either.

 

[OldLady]

FYI:

Those that bring up the Regulated Milita part should understand in today time it mean your former enlisted members that are in the Reserves or Guard and not the Militia you envision from movies.

As being ex-military ( yes, crazy ain't it ) when I left I did my reserve time also and could have been recalled at any time during war.

So sit there and understand that Active, Reserve and Guard members will be armed and that is what I interpret the Second Amendment Militia clause to mean.

The National Guard supplies its members with weapons. They do not have to keep their own at home and bring them with them.

 

[BULLDOG]

Laws against drunk driving don't stop drunk drivers killing people, but they are still worth while.

We already have laws regulating who can and can not buy firearms, so how many more do you need before you realize LEO will never enforce those laws?

I disagree, and we can discuss that in a minute, but for now, are you willing to admit regulation and infringement are not the same?

They can be, dependent upon application. Regulate is defined as to control, direct or adjust. An example of regulate is for a committee to make rules that control trade in an area.

Infringement is defined as the action of limiting or undermining something. In other words - controlling, directing or adjusting.

You should be telling that to the supreme court. I don't think they agree with you.

Yeah bring up a bunch of political activists when reality gets thrown in your face. Lol

Your crazy is showing.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

What part that is missing, makes it dishonest? If anything, it backs up his point.

"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."
Since we no longer have a militia and have no need for one, the right is no longer necessary either.

Actually you are wrong as usual...

National Guard along with Reservists are the Regulated Militia of today, so the Amendment words still hold.

I wish people would actually study what they are discussing before making asinine comments!

 

[Carl in Michigan]

They should ban any and all magazines that carry more than 10 shells, and enforce it to make sure you only allowed 1 to buy every 15 years , if you lose it to bad.

You should be allowed to speak once every 15 years. If you forget what you had to say, too bad!

 

[BULLDOG]

Where, in the constitution, do you see justification for the difference? They are all the same in the constitution.

Where, in the constitution, do you see justification for the difference?

Illegal to yell 'Fire' in a theater, same reason hate speech is actionable.

Sawed off shotguns are illegal.

Fully automatic weapons need special licenses.

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions.

Banning AK 47s, AR 15s, magazines over 10 rounds?

NOT reasonable

So you admit the whole "shall not be infringed" argument is a bullshit excuse to oppose common sense regulation. Good for you.

oppose common sense regulation.

I don't oppose 'common sense regualtion'.

I just explained that.

banning so called 'assault' weapons is NOT common sense.

Let me know when someone shows up at your house to take your guns.

Like this guy?

Did Beto come to your house?

 

[Ame®icano]

I used to shoot deer from the chair on my back porch. Now it's hogs. I know about rural east Texas. Nobody is gonna ban your 870 or 1100 or what ever you have. Whoever scared you into believing that was going to happen is not your friend. Regulating is not the same as banning. Regulating means the crazy guy down the road who shoots every time he hears a cricket because he thinks black helicopters are landing in his back yard will have a harder time buying guns. I think that is a good idea.

What's wrong with shooting crickets in own backyard?

 

[2aguy]

No

Why not?

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

Oh....so then you are fine with all other semi-automatic weapons in private hands, including AR-15s.....right?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

What part that is missing, makes it dishonest? If anything, it backs up his point.

"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."
Since we no longer have a militia and have no need for one, the right is no longer necessary either.

Actually you are wrong as usual...

National Guard along with Reservists are the Regulated Militia of today, so the Amendment words still hold.

I wish people would actually study what they are discussing before making asinine comments!

Morons debating the 2nd Amendment with morons.

 

[toobfreak]

They should ban any and all magazines that carry more than 10 shells, and enforce it to make sure you only allowed 1 to buy every 15 years , if you lose it to bad.

SHELLS? SHELLS? Famous last words from another clueless twit on how far not to go from someone who never left.

If you prefer round.

It's not what I "prefer," Twinkie, it is what they are called.

Once a bullet is spent or empty needing reloaded, the part left over that holds the charge is called a casing.

SHELLS, Dear, refer to artillery and mortar shells you bombard people with. They don't go in a magazine and you're not likely to find any on the street.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

FYI:

Those that bring up the Regulated Milita part should understand in today time it mean your former enlisted members that are in the Reserves or Guard and not the Militia you envision from movies.

As being ex-military ( yes, crazy ain't it ) when I left I did my reserve time also and could have been recalled at any time during war.

So sit there and understand that Active, Reserve and Guard members will be armed and that is what I interpret the Second Amendment Militia clause to mean.

The National Guard supplies its members with weapons. They do not have to keep their own at home and bring them with them.

We have the right to defend our own home and for you to deny us this right, well that is the Demcrat in you!

You just made an ass of yourself by saying we do not have a regulated Militia in this country but we do when it is the Reservists and Guard.

You have no say in if I am allow to own a firearm unless I have done an infraction with the State I am in to have my right denied to me which mean a Felony or some type of physical abuse or threat that resulted in a criminal charge and conviction.

It is those like you that believe you can call a Sheriff out while never realizing that the nearest one is two hours away and yes there are place like that here in Texas, so let stop the nonsense!

Because you do not want to own a firearm is your choice but I have every right to own one seeing I have never been convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor and no you do not have the right to say I should not own one.

So please learn your place in society and stay out of my home and how I protect it!

 

[Ame®icano]

Where, in the constitution, do you see justification for the difference? They are all the same in the constitution.

Where, in the constitution, do you see justification for the difference?

Illegal to yell 'Fire' in a theater, same reason hate speech is actionable.

Sawed off shotguns are illegal.

Fully automatic weapons need special licenses.

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions.

Banning AK 47s, AR 15s, magazines over 10 rounds?

NOT reasonable

So you admit the whole "shall not be infringed" argument is a bullshit excuse to oppose common sense regulation. Good for you.

oppose common sense regulation.

I don't oppose 'common sense regualtion'.

I just explained that.

banning so called 'assault' weapons is NOT common sense.

Let me know when someone shows up at your house to take your guns.

Like this guy?

Or this asshole?

 

[Ame®icano]

No

Why not?

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

With rare exceptions, Americans don't own fully automatic weapons.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Why not?

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

With rare exceptions, Americans don't own fully automatic weapons.

And you have to go through a lot of paper work.

The left would ban water guns if they knew they could get away with it...

 

[Ame®icano]

No

Why not?

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

Sorry, here is the other half....

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you feel any better?

 

[Auld Phart]

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

What part that is missing, makes it dishonest? If anything, it backs up his point.

"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."
Since we no longer have a militia and have no need for one, the right is no longer necessary either.

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

What part that is missing, makes it dishonest? If anything, it backs up his point.

"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."
Since we no longer have a militia and have no need for one, the right is no longer necessary either.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Not the right of the militia, the right of the people