Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[Flash]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

 

[Lysistrata]

I have had the "pleasure" of taking away guns from a mentally ill relative, hiding them (in the hedges on the property and not in my car, since he could fight me for the keys) and warning the police, all to prevent a suicide by cop. I have some experience with guns in the hands of people who should never have had them.

If people insist on carrying guns in public, while not being members of law enforcement or the legitimate National Guard of their state, would it not be fair to require such people to wear some sort of badge or other openly-displayed symbol so that members of the public could choose whether to interact with them or not?

I don't want to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger with a loaded firearm and I was not warned. If someone like that is in the same aisle as me in a supermarket, I just might move to another aisle. If in a restaurant, I might ask to be seated elsewhere.

 

[pismoe]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

-------------------------------------- it is WE and my People against against YOU .

 

[pismoe]

I have had the "pleasure" of taking away guns from a mentally ill relative, hiding them (in the hedges on the property and not in my car, since he could fight me for the keys) and warning the police, all to prevent a suicide by cop. I have some experience with guns in the hands of people who should never have had them.

If people insist on carrying guns in public, while not being members of law enforcement or the legitimate National Guard of their state, would it not be fair to require such people to wear some sort of badge or other openly-displayed symbol so that members of the public could choose whether to interact with them or not?

I don't want to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger with a loaded firearm and I was not warned. If someone like that is in the same aisle as me in a supermarket, I just might move to another aisle. If in a restaurant, I might ask to be seated elsewhere.

--------------------------------- i'd rather annoy or scare and make you wonder all your life rather than to Accommodate your fantasy Lysis . But that aside , who is going to tell you who the armed people are in your little fantasy Scenario . It'd be stupid for a gun carrier to identify themselves . Remember , gun carriers carry guns to protect themselves , their families and friends and not YOU Lysis ??

 

[pismoe]

I have had the "pleasure" of taking away guns from a mentally ill relative, hiding them (in the hedges on the property and not in my car, since he could fight me for the keys) and warning the police, all to prevent a suicide by cop. I have some experience with guns in the hands of people who should never have had them.

If people insist on carrying guns in public, while not being members of law enforcement or the legitimate National Guard of their state, would it not be fair to require such people to wear some sort of badge or other openly-displayed symbol so that members of the public could choose whether to interact with them or not?

I don't want to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger with a loaded firearm and I was not warned. If someone like that is in the same aisle as me in a supermarket, I just might move to another aisle. If in a restaurant, I might ask to be seated elsewhere.

----------------------------- so just some more more 'drama queen' eh Lysis ??

 

[pismoe]

“Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone”

True.

In fact, there are common sense measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, such as universal background checks and ensuring the states have the funding and ability to update the NICS database in a timely manner.

But the NRA and most on the right continue to propagate their ridiculous lie and slippery slope fallacy that common sense measures will lead to the ‘banning’ of all guns and their eventual ‘confiscation.’

Cut the crap. Gun bans have been the left's goal for decades

I feel you and people like you will no longer be tolerated.
There is a tsunami of emotion and actions, led by the young, that will drive you into your rat hole.

---------------------------- did you see the students at the Pity Party at the Stem school just a couple days ago . It may be that Youngsters are starting to realize that they are the targets of 'gun control' as they just reach the age to be able to independently be able to buy Guns Elmer .

 

[Flash]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right then the crime should never be the possession of the arm. There should be laws preventing the use of firearm for unlawful purposes but never for keeping and bearing.

It never should be the business of the government what or how many firearms I own just like it should never be their business what church I go to.

If the stupid Liberals can protect the right of a woman to kill their child, on demand, for the sake of convenience and say it is a Constitutional right then I sure as hell should not have the filthy government infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms when it says directly in the Constitution that it shall not be infringed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

-------------------------------------- it is WE and my People against against YOU .

Now you are talking for We the People. Well, cupcake, We the People in this state adopted common sense gun regs. If you are speaking for We the People then you would be taking a different stance. To you, the fringe, small vocal group you identify with is the only ones that should be heard and you should control all others. Newsflash, cupcake, you aren't speaking for We the People.

 

[progressive hunter]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

-------------------------------------- it is WE and my People against against YOU .

Now you are talking for We the People. Well, cupcake, We the People in this state adopted common sense gun regs. If you are speaking for We the People then you would be taking a different stance. To you, the fringe, small vocal group you identify with is the only ones that should be heard and you should control all others. Newsflash, cupcake, you aren't speaking for We the People.

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

-------------------------------------- it is WE and my People against against YOU .

Now you are talking for We the People. Well, cupcake, We the People in this state adopted common sense gun regs. If you are speaking for We the People then you would be taking a different stance. To you, the fringe, small vocal group you identify with is the only ones that should be heard and you should control all others. Newsflash, cupcake, you aren't speaking for We the People.

like you are,,,

 

[Daryl Hunt]

“Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone”

True.

In fact, there are common sense measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, such as universal background checks and ensuring the states have the funding and ability to update the NICS database in a timely manner.

But the NRA and most on the right continue to propagate their ridiculous lie and slippery slope fallacy that common sense measures will lead to the ‘banning’ of all guns and their eventual ‘confiscation.’

Cut the crap. Gun bans have been the left's goal for decades

I feel you and people like you will no longer be tolerated.
There is a tsunami of emotion and actions, led by the young, that will drive you into your rat hole.

---------------------------- did you see the students at the Pity Party at the Stem school just a couple days ago . It may be that Youngsters are starting to realize that they are the targets of 'gun control' as they just reach the age to be able to independently be able to buy Guns Elmer .

They are also celebrating at least 3 Patriots that stopped the shooting before it got out of hand. Unfortunately, the one that allowed the shooter to be taken down died. They aren't celebrating your "More Guns" routine. The fact remains, they did it without being armed themselves and used numbers to bring the bad guy down. You can't stand it that they weren't all blood thirsty killers with guns that did it. They are normal human beings that are fed up with armed shooters coming into their world.

 

[eflatminor]

But I do go for common sense gun laws.

What exactly is it about "...shall not be infringed" that is confusing to you? You're allowed to not care about your rights, but you do understand what you "go for" is infringing on others rights, yes?

Okay, here we go again.

The End amendment has all but been legislated out of existance. Due to the first 2/3rds, the National Guard Act of 1917 pretty well trashed that part. That part of it needs to be taken out. Not just rewritten but taken completely out.

Now, about the last part. This is the part you and others like you keep repeating over and over.

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

We outgrew that as of 1859 when the first Walker Colt was introduced. If you know anything about the real Western History you would see that the word infringed no longer applied. And we outgrew the word "Arms" in the process. Public safety became a real problem and the first Gun Regs were introduced in 1871 in western towns and cities. I won't go into why or how but they made some pretty drastic (for the time) choices and then upheld those actions. You can't change the facts that we DO need some firearms regulations these days as much as we needed them in 1871.

So now we get it to read

the right of the people to keep and bear Firearms, shall not be infringed.

It's still not right. There are classes of weapons that no sane person will ever attempt to own, buy or operate in a civilian world. I don't believe you need a M-2 50 cal machine gun bolted on the back of your Pickup Truck. I don't think you need a Nuclear Weapon of any kind. I don't think you need a surplus M-60 Nato 7.62 Belt Fed Machine gun also mounted on that already overloaded half ton. (btw, you can buy a M-60 but you can't buy it's replacement, the M-240). You tell me how it can be rewritten so it makes sense. In such a short form, I just don't see a way.

Okay, you want to keep hammering us with the 2nd amendment over and over and you want to use it EXACTLY as it is written. Sounds good to me. Here is is one more time.

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

You want a literal meaning exactly as worded? Sure, let's do that. You have the right to wear sleaveless shirts and display both or your Manly Muscles. You want it verbatim, fine, but that is exactly what it says.

Now, do you agree that we need to upgrade it? I certainly do.

You've expressed profound ignorance as to the meaning and purpose of the amendment. So, no, I do not believe anything need be "upgraded". You can't just change the meaning of the words as they were written at the time. What the government has, the people shall have. What you think another "needs" is irrelevant.

You may not mean to, but you're supporting tyranny. Shame.

 

[Flash]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

-------------------------------------- it is WE and my People against against YOU .

Now you are talking for We the People. Well, cupcake, We the People in this state adopted common sense gun regs. If you are speaking for We the People then you would be taking a different stance. To you, the fringe, small vocal group you identify with is the only ones that should be heard and you should control all others. Newsflash, cupcake, you aren't speaking for We the People.

Stupid Liberals don't know what common sense is, especially when it comes to gun control.

If you are confused about it then I can give several examples of oppressive gun control abuses that were touted as being "common sense".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right then the crime should never be the possession of the arm. There should be laws preventing the use of firearm for unlawful purposes but never for keeping and bearing.

It never should be the business of the government what or how many firearms I own just like it should never be their business what church I go to.

If the stupid Liberals can protect the right of a woman to kill their child, on demand, for the sake of convenience and say it is a Constitutional right then I sure as hell should not have the filthy government infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms when it says directly in the Constitution that it shall not be infringed.

That's your interpretation. You want it that way, move to get the Constitution to read that way. Otherwise, others are as free to do their own interpretation and make it into law which is the case.

 

[progressive hunter]

what i

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right then the crime should never be the possession of the arm. There should be laws preventing the use of firearm for unlawful purposes but never for keeping and bearing.

It never should be the business of the government what or how many firearms I own just like it should never be their business what church I go to.

If the stupid Liberals can protect the right of a woman to kill their child, on demand, for the sake of convenience and say it is a Constitutional right then I sure as hell should not have the filthy government infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms when it says directly in the Constitution that it shall not be infringed.

That's your interpretation. You want it that way, move to get the Constitution to read that way. Otherwise, others are as free to do their own interpretation and make it into law which is the case.

what it says is just fine,,its your interpretation thats the problem

 

[Blues Man]

I have had the "pleasure" of taking away guns from a mentally ill relative, hiding them (in the hedges on the property and not in my car, since he could fight me for the keys) and warning the police, all to prevent a suicide by cop. I have some experience with guns in the hands of people who should never have had them.

If people insist on carrying guns in public, while not being members of law enforcement or the legitimate National Guard of their state, would it not be fair to require such people to wear some sort of badge or other openly-displayed symbol so that members of the public could choose whether to interact with them or not?

I don't want to go to some restaurant, club, store, theater, park, or other places open to general society, only to find out when it is too late, that I was next to some stranger with a loaded firearm and I was not warned. If someone like that is in the same aisle as me in a supermarket, I just might move to another aisle. If in a restaurant, I might ask to be seated elsewhere.

It must be hard to live in that kind of irrational fear.

People with concealed weapon permits are some of the most law abiding people in the country.
You'd be better off worrying about the criminals who obtain guns illegally as they are the ones that are the greatest threat.

 

[Blues Man]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

-------------------------------------- it is WE and my People against against YOU .

Now you are talking for We the People. Well, cupcake, We the People in this state adopted common sense gun regs. If you are speaking for We the People then you would be taking a different stance. To you, the fringe, small vocal group you identify with is the only ones that should be heard and you should control all others. Newsflash, cupcake, you aren't speaking for We the People.

And they haven't stopped anyone from killing have they?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But I do go for common sense gun laws.

What exactly is it about "...shall not be infringed" that is confusing to you? You're allowed to not care about your rights, but you do understand what you "go for" is infringing on others rights, yes?

Okay, here we go again.

The End amendment has all but been legislated out of existance. Due to the first 2/3rds, the National Guard Act of 1917 pretty well trashed that part. That part of it needs to be taken out. Not just rewritten but taken completely out.

Now, about the last part. This is the part you and others like you keep repeating over and over.

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

We outgrew that as of 1859 when the first Walker Colt was introduced. If you know anything about the real Western History you would see that the word infringed no longer applied. And we outgrew the word "Arms" in the process. Public safety became a real problem and the first Gun Regs were introduced in 1871 in western towns and cities. I won't go into why or how but they made some pretty drastic (for the time) choices and then upheld those actions. You can't change the facts that we DO need some firearms regulations these days as much as we needed them in 1871.

So now we get it to read

the right of the people to keep and bear Firearms, shall not be infringed.

It's still not right. There are classes of weapons that no sane person will ever attempt to own, buy or operate in a civilian world. I don't believe you need a M-2 50 cal machine gun bolted on the back of your Pickup Truck. I don't think you need a Nuclear Weapon of any kind. I don't think you need a surplus M-60 Nato 7.62 Belt Fed Machine gun also mounted on that already overloaded half ton. (btw, you can buy a M-60 but you can't buy it's replacement, the M-240). You tell me how it can be rewritten so it makes sense. In such a short form, I just don't see a way.

Okay, you want to keep hammering us with the 2nd amendment over and over and you want to use it EXACTLY as it is written. Sounds good to me. Here is is one more time.

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

You want a literal meaning exactly as worded? Sure, let's do that. You have the right to wear sleaveless shirts and display both or your Manly Muscles. You want it verbatim, fine, but that is exactly what it says.

Now, do you agree that we need to upgrade it? I certainly do.

You've expressed profound ignorance as to the meaning and purpose of the amendment. So, no, I do not believe anything need be "upgraded". You can't just change the meaning of the words as they were written at the time. What the government has, the people shall have. What you think another "needs" is irrelevant.

You may not mean to, but you're supporting tyranny. Shame.

I just presented the verbatim, word for word of the 2nd amendment. Or at least the last part of it that you keep bringing up. You can't change the fact that it can be interpreted many ways and is being interpreted many ways. You want us to interpret it the way you say, I suggest you get it changed to be specific so that there can be no need to interpret it. Laws need to read specifics. Any other way and you end up with a Legal mess on your hands. And you have the same support as the Gun Grabbers so most of us don't listen to either groups views. So we make common sense gun laws. And going back to the OP, I can go into any gun shop and leave within 15 minutes with any gun that they have to sell on the shelf. If I choose to own a full auto, it just takes a lot longer but I can still buy it and take it home. I really don't see too much abridging done on firearms under common sense gun regs. I have freedoms and I don't see anyone successful in abridging those freedoms. Well, you are suggesting that some of my freedoms should be abridged. And you don't understand that. Too bad. But the common sense players are winning and when we win, everyone wins.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

-------------------------------------- it is WE and my People against against YOU .

Now you are talking for We the People. Well, cupcake, We the People in this state adopted common sense gun regs. If you are speaking for We the People then you would be taking a different stance. To you, the fringe, small vocal group you identify with is the only ones that should be heard and you should control all others. Newsflash, cupcake, you aren't speaking for We the People.

Stupid Liberals don't know what common sense is, especially when it comes to gun control.

If you are confused about it then I can give several examples of oppressive gun control abuses that were touted as being "common sense".

Tell you what. You do that but don't look for the community at large to pay any attention to you. We don't feel that the common sense gun regs takes away any right to own firearms. If you do then you are either outside the law (as in criminal intent or worse) or just a paranoid running loose on society.

 

[Flash]

[Q

You say that we must take the 2nd literally. .

Pretty much so.

The least we should do is apply the same strict scrutiny criteria to the right to keep and bear arms as we do to other rights protected under the Bill of Rights. The courts don't do that now and that is despicable.

The last thing we need is to have hateful delusional and not that bright Liberals deciding how to apply the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We see over and over again that they never get it right and erode our individual liberties.

By the way, don't give me this horseshit about you Liberals caring about the welfare of children when you support the murdering of a million of them each year for the sake of convenience. In addition to that you want to destroy the liberty and economic well being of our children with destructive and failed Left policies.

If you want the 2nd to be taken literally, then I suggest you modernize it legally instead of just causing trouble. I am not in favor of doing away with it's meaning but I am in favor of rewriting to a more modern legal wording.

You are still trying to make this an "Us against Them" game. US is everyone.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right then the crime should never be the possession of the arm. There should be laws preventing the use of firearm for unlawful purposes but never for keeping and bearing.

It never should be the business of the government what or how many firearms I own just like it should never be their business what church I go to.

If the stupid Liberals can protect the right of a woman to kill their child, on demand, for the sake of convenience and say it is a Constitutional right then I sure as hell should not have the filthy government infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms when it says directly in the Constitution that it shall not be infringed.

That's your interpretation. You want it that way, move to get the Constitution to read that way. Otherwise, others are as free to do their own interpretation and make it into law which is the case.

Just like you are so idiotic as to think that you filthy ass Liberals can redefine the Bill of Rights to be what you morons think is "reasonable"? You wouldn't know what "reasonable" was if it bit you in the ass.

You asshole confused Libtards passed the SAFE Act in New York and it was touted as "reasonable gun control". One of the outrageous things the stupid law did was restrict magazine capacity. A week after it was passed a decorated veterans was arrested by jackbooted government thugs for having an empty 30 round AR magazine in the trunk of the car. Not even an AR or any ammo, just the magazine. He was not engaged in any criminal activity and he had no prior record of criminal activity but he was arrested and booked for the mere possession of the same magazine that millions of other Americans own. I own over 300 of them myself.

I can give you many more examples of abuses by so called "reasonable gun control laws". There ain't no such thing as a reasonable gun control law when the Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed. You are an idiot if you think there are such things as reasonable restrictions when it comes to redefining Constitutional rights.

What part of "shall not be infringed" are you confused about Moon Bat?