Biden on Gun Control

[toobfreak]

how foo9lish of you.

only someone that has NO clue about firearms would call a bullet a 'shell'.

Even an $8,000 - $12,000 Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, about the biggest rifle anyone is likely to ever buy still fires ROUNDS.

Even a Mini Gun doesn't fire shells!


View attachment 310068


About the smallest shell I can think of is a 60mm bazooka shell.


View attachment 310069

Still, no magazine. But at least she didn't call it a clip.

shotgun shells?

I stand corrected, I only shot the M16 in the NG. But the constitution didn't tell you what kind of gun or rifle you might have nor did it tell you anything about what kind of accessories you might have, or anything about future laws.

The public safety overrides the individual rights.

the 2nd doesnt mention guns you ignorant twit,,,it was for any arms needed to resist any threat,,,

"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."
-------------------------------
your right, its says militias and arms, So since the NG has arms , no need for everyday citizens to have any guns, rifles or weapons which are considered arms.

Sorry Cupcake but that is not what the 2a means. It is not referring to government-owned STATE militias, as how can an individual protect himself from a government gone bad if his militia is owned and run by the state?

In the time of our Founders, a militia referred to any local group banding together to defend their community.

https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment

I might also add that according to the experts Ive heard, back in the 1700s, "well-regulated" meant basically, ARMED TO THE TEETH, not controlled or restricted by the government.

 

[White 6]

Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts

"Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts"



That's sure to win him the votes of thousands of gun owners.

Right?

He cannot sell his idea of gun control in his own state. We have nothing to fear of him getting radical measures through congress.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Va tech the guy had a 9mm and a 22 cal, pistols, ban those also I guess? Why not ban soda's and mothers who kill their children by drowning them, and dont forget automobiles, they kill more than anything else.

 

[toobfreak]

how foo9lish of you.

only someone that has NO clue about firearms would call a bullet a 'shell'.

Even an $8,000 - $12,000 Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, about the biggest rifle anyone is likely to ever buy still fires ROUNDS.

Even a Mini Gun doesn't fire shells!


View attachment 310068


About the smallest shell I can think of is a 60mm bazooka shell.


View attachment 310069

Still, no magazine. But at least she didn't call it a clip.

shotgun shells?

I stand corrected, I only shot the M16 in the NG. But the constitution didn't tell you what kind of gun or rifle you might have nor did it tell you anything about what kind of accessories you might have, or anything about future laws.

The public safety overrides the individual rights.

If it is public safety you are concerned with, then you've made the best case for gun ownership.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

No they don't, far and few between.

BULLSHIT. Prove otherwise. Every month, I get a list of notable crimes stopped or prevented or lives saved not generally published in the MSM because BAD news, fires, murder, and disasters sell papers.

I DARE you to prove even ONE of these false. Put up or shit up, BITCH.

 

[Ame®icano]

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...

Every weapon can be used for defense or offense. Only difference, we keep and bear arms for our defense from them.

Their ultimate goal is to change the definition and name every weapon an "assault weapon", so they can take it away. It start with semi-auto, later with hand guns, and we gonna end up like UK, where you need to show ID to buy butter knife.

I'm sure you can still get a butter knife without an ID at a gun show.

Still trolling?

Directly responding to what is posted is not trolling. I will admit discussing ID requirements for a butter knife is absurd, but the one that brought it up is more guilty of trolling than I am.

Nope. My post explains what happens when government take control over your rights. In UK, it's illegal to sell ANY knife to person under 18, which requires everyone to show ID when purchasing one, even a butter knife.
You can still buy them online without ID, but you're required to pick it up from the store, where you have to show the ID.

So, instead of brainlessly yapping, you should read a little and inform yourself. Troll.

 

[Ame®icano]

They should ban Glocks instead of AR 15s and AK 47s.

they have safeties, Glocks don't.

My finger is my safety so yes they do have them.

They don't have a built in safety.

neither do revolvers,,,

are you going to start trolling now?

how is that trolling??

Continuation from post #143.

 

[OldLady]

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.

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

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

 

[August West]

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.

Va tech the guy had a 9mm and a 22 cal, pistols, ban those also I guess? Why not ban soda's and mothers who kill their children by drowning them, and dont forget automobiles, they kill more than anything else.

Comparing sodas to guns? You lose. That`s the argument of a jr. high delinquent.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

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

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

 

[TNHarley]

Also, considering context of the amendment, we needed to keep govt in check. As long as there is a govt, there is a second. Unless you pass a constitutional amendment.
Nobody ever wants to do that though because the majority of the country arent limp wristed statists

 

[TNHarley]

Statists hate talking about context and intent because what they really intended doesnt fit their narrative.
PASS AN AMENDMENT YOU GODDAMN LIARS

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

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

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

yes for men of a certain age it was required ,,,the rest it was their option,,

now if it was required for some then shouldnt the government provide them???

 

[progressive hunter]

"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.

"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

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

being in a militia was not a requirement in the 2nd,,,

 

[Flash]

Is Biden so stupid as to think draconian gun control laws in the USA are going to be a winning issue for him?

Just ask Beto how it worked out for him or that other dumbshit from California.

 

[August West]

Also, considering context of the amendment, we needed to keep govt in check. As long as there is a govt, there is a second. Unless you pass a constitutional amendment.
Nobody ever wants to do that though because the majority of the country arent limp wristed statists

If we disagree with our elected officials our Founders wanted us to shoot them? I`m amazed at the stupid shit you people are being fed. What do you think our government would be doing to us if there were no armed citizens? Seriously, what are your fears?

 

[OldLady]

"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.

"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

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

You already said that.

 

[OldLady]

"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.

"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

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

yes for men of a certain age it was required ,,,the rest it was their option,,

now if it was required for some then shouldnt the government provide them???

??? I guess you'd need to take that up with Washington.

 

[Auld Phart]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

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

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

You already said that.

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[OldLady]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

You already said that.

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.

 

[Auld Phart]

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

You already said that.

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.

Then why didn't they write the Right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, instead of the PEOPLE?

(Psst, they didn't, they gave that right to the people, not the militia)