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

[Flash]

[QU. We don't feel that the common sense gun regs takes away any right to own firearms. .

Then you are a fucking idiot because that is exactly what these filthy gun control laws do.

You are either an idiot or confused as hell.

 

[Blues Man]

[QU. We don't feel that the common sense gun regs takes away any right to own firearms. .

Then you are a fucking idiot because that is exactly what these filthy gun control laws do.

You are either an idiot or confused as hell.

He's both

 

[Uncensored2008]

But you want anyone to own them. No training, no classes, no background checks. No permits to carry. Carry them in schools and in bars.

You want idiots like me to have no regulations.

Freedom isn’t free! Lol

Just like a chainsaw? Or a forge?

Moron...

Hey everyone. I’m a hypocrite like al gore when he preached about going green. Sure he has 3 homes all burning electricity and he flies on private jets but that doesn’t mean he can’t be for us as a society going green.

Same for me. I said my new gun comes with an 8 round clip and they shouldn’t make clips that hold more rounds, but then the guy shows up and he had two normal clips and one that holds ten instead of 8.

That doesn’t mean I approve of them making ten round clips.

But, guess which clip this hypocrite put in the gun? Lol

Here we go

I you had a gun you would know that the correct term is magazine not clip.

I assume you're speaking of a handgun and it doesn't matter what size the magazine is So what if my 9 mm carry gun has a 15 round magazine who the fuck are you to tell me I should only have 8 rounds?

I tried to explain to the idiot that if it were a REAL gun fight I could just out distance him and take him out with a single shot .22

A .45 ACP is up close and personal.

 

[pismoe]

[QU. We don't feel that the common sense gun regs takes away any right to own firearms. .

Then you are a fucking idiot because that is exactly what these filthy gun control laws do.

You are either an idiot or confused as hell.

------------------------------------ [with respect] don't do the favor of saying or accepting the description of Confused . The guy 'mrguncontrol' is a political enemy and is only one of many enemies .

 

[pismoe]

just yesterday he was threatening people on the board .

 

[secamen]

from the prone position, I can reliably hit a man at 200 yds with a .45 ACP carbine. Why should a guy with a pistol have to go up against a rifle, hmm? I can stand there and reliably hit you at 100 yds with a match 1911, no problem. The .45 has a lot more reach than you "think".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

What exactly is it about "...the Second Amendment is not unlimited" that is confusing to you?

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, where such limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment in no manner infringe on the right to possess a firearm.

 

[pismoe]

YOU also are a Gun Controller Clayton .

 

[Flash]

from the prone position, I can reliably hit a man at 200 yds with a .45 ACP carbine. Why should a guy with a pistol have to go up against a rifle, hmm? I can stand there and reliably hit you at 100 yds with a match 1911, no problem. The .45 has a lot more reach than you "think".

I haven't tried 200 yds but a couple of weeks ago a few of us were shooting our pistols at a 100 yd berm. I was surprised at how accurate we could be once we got the bullet drop figured out. I was able to pop the 4 inch clays one after another. Both with a Colt 1911 and a S&W 5903 9mm.

 

[pismoe]

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?

What exactly is it about "...the Second Amendment is not unlimited" that is confusing to you?

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, where such limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment in no manner infringe on the right to possess a firearm.

------------------------------ second amendment jurisprudence is a joke as all it is is BS based on Earlier Ruling that was BS to begin with . And the goal of previous Jurisprudence is to greatly reduce the American People RIGHT to ARM'S or guns Clayton . ------------------------- its all dishonest Jurisprudence that is supposed to be respected because some Court or the 'Supreme Court' ruled Clayton .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nonsense.

The courts alone determine what the Second Amendment means, ultimately the Supreme Court.

Regulations such as background checks and carry permits are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

 

[pismoe]

yes of course thats true for a Statist or 'subject' like personality like YOU Clayton .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The ignorance is yours alone.

Read Heller/McDonald to address your ignorance.

 

[Flash]

Nonsense.

The courts alone determine what the Second Amendment means, ultimately the Supreme Court.

Regulations such as background checks and carry permits are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

You are confused.

First of all there hasn't been very many gun control cases before the Supreme Court and the last one determined that the filthy ass state could not ban handguns and that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.

Although the Court in Miller fucked up big time upholding the stupid NFA laws it was also determined in that case that the people have the right as the same arms as the military.

The problem we have is that the lower courts have not applied the same strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment as thy have to other rights. That is a shame. It has robed us of our Liberty.

The other problem with gun control laws being reviewed by the courts is quite often there is another crime associated with the core issue of the right to keep and bear arms and the individual right never get properly litigated.

In order to have the basic liberty litigated you must have standing and very few people are willing to risk losing the case and going to jail in order to give the court an opportunity to rule on it.

I would love to challenge the filthy NFA laws in court and I think with the right legal representation I could win but I don't have the money to do it and I don't want to risk jail if I lost.

Hopefully Trump will be able to replace a couple of more of these Liberal idiots on the Supreme Court with Constitutional Conservatives and there will a few court cases that will restore our Liberty that the stupid States and Federal government have taken away from us.

 

[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.

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?

It's time to thin the herd once again. Obviously your upbringing was flawed. So have a nice day and don't shoot your foot off.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[QU. We don't feel that the common sense gun regs takes away any right to own firearms. .

Then you are a fucking idiot because that is exactly what these filthy gun control laws do.

You are either an idiot or confused as hell.

------------------------------------ [with respect] don't do the favor of saying or accepting the description of Confused . The guy 'mrguncontrol' is a political enemy and is only one of many enemies .

And which confused people should I not listen to. It appears the gunnuters and the guncrazies are equally unhinged. (with respect)

 

[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?

What exactly is it about "...the Second Amendment is not unlimited" that is confusing to you?

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, where such limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment in no manner infringe on the right to possess a firearm.

------------------------------ second amendment jurisprudence is a joke as all it is is BS based on Earlier Ruling that was BS to begin with . And the goal of previous Jurisprudence is to greatly reduce the American People RIGHT to ARM'S or guns Clayton . ------------------------- its all dishonest Jurisprudence that is supposed to be respected because some Court or the 'Supreme Court' ruled Clayton .

Yet you refuse to support the rewriting and updating the 2nd amendment that would prevent that from happening. You can stop crying in your beer anytime and correct that. But until you do, the Supreme Court will make the gun laws along with the states.. Imagine that, if Congress won't do their friggin jobs the states and the supreme court does it. Wow, exactly like it's supposed to be.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yet you refuse to support the rewriting and updating the 2nd amendment that would prevent that from happening. You can stop crying in your beer anytime and correct that. But until you do, the Supreme Court will make the gun laws along with the states.. Imagine that, if Congress won't do their friggin jobs the states and the supreme court does it. Wow, exactly like it's supposed to be.

It is the job of Congress, the Supreme Court, and all other parts of government, above all else, to uphold the Constitution. Everywhere that any part of government establishes laws or policies that are contrary to the Constitution, this is an act of corruption and malfeasance.

If you think that any part of the Constitution is outdated or wrong, there is a process for amending it. It's odd that I rarely ever hear of those who hate the Second Amendment,and the right that it affirms, speaking of using this process to legitimately overturn the Second Amendment. They only ever advocate various parts of government blatantly violating the Second Amendment.

Surely, you have to know that if the policy you want can only be enacted illegitimately, in violation of the Constitution, rather than legitimately by amending it, that your cause is itself illegitimate.

 

[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.

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.

If you read the words of the men that wrote the amendment (Federalist Papers, letters, speeches, etc), their meaning and the reasons and motivations for what they wrote, there is absolutely no room for varied interpretation. It means what it means. The government shall not infringe.

Stop with the tyranny. You do not know what's best for others.

 

[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.

The ignorance is yours alone.

Read Heller/McDonald to address your ignorance.

Read the Federalist Paper to address yours.

Molon Labe.