Democrats Pass Sweeping Gun Control

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

List of shitty gun nut clichés

1) If xxxxxxx had a 2nd Amendment, it wouldn't have happened

2) Come try and take my guns

3) The answer to gun violence is more guns

4) Limey

5) Bow to your King (But Americans actually fail to mention they pledge allegiance to a flag, lol)

6) We kicked your British asses out (But Americans fail to mention the French saved the British colonies)

7) We have the 2nd Amendment (This one comes out when they're faced with common sense)

8) Guns in the UK are banned

9) Gun free zone

10) Democrats let the criminals out

11) Shooters are mental health patients

There's certainly 11 that regurgitate out all the time. Gun nuts don't have the brain capacity to debate very far whatsoever, so they default to clichés. I wonder how many have appeared in this thread alone, lmfao

Those are not cliches. Many are called "facts".

 

[LibertyKid]

Sounds AWESOME. Every state should have these laws.

The Second Amendment is about Militias that don't exist anymore.

Wrong. We've had this discussion. State constitutions at the inception of this country not only backed up the 2nd amendment but also included the right for citizens to bare arms making clear distinctions between the two.

History tells the story of why our founding fathers wanted citizens to be armed Protection of self, and protection from a tyrannical gov't.

You can try and explain it away. Good luck.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Those are not cliches. Many are called "facts".

Clichés, they just blurt out all the time. You cover a cliché, it blurts out again, so you cover the cliché again, it blurts out again. Gun nuts haven't got the ability to realise and remember the cliché has already been covered and dealt with. So you would hope to advance the debate further on. But nope, their retardation doesn't allow.

And yet here we are today, just going over the same ole clichés.

 

[LibertyKid]

Distinction without a difference. There are some weapons that civilians shouldn't have, militia or not. If the whole purpose of giving the people arms to overthrow a hypothetically tyrannical government, then why is any "Armarment" off the table? It seems you'd have an easier time overthrowing the government with weaponized anthrax than an AR-15.

There is nothing hypothetical about it when history tells the story of how we stopped the British from confiscating our own arms which led to the formation of the current country you call home. Given your ideology, we would still be under a monarchy. And when you site British "gun" crime as some poster child of gun control, you forget to mention that most gun crime is then committed by criminals and gangs.

The below video is from 5 years ago:
I can't validate the stats summary in the video from the BBC but it states:

Gun crime across England and Wales has increased by 27% over the last year and in London is 42% higher.One-in-six of the victims of gun crime in London in the first eight months of this year was aged 17 or under.The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, says tackling violence is her "priority".



And guess what: most of their gun crime is gang related. Criminals who illegally obtain guns.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The thread is about dangerous America with guns and not your silly clichés on other countries to try and deflect your embarrassment

I'm just pointing out that you are ignoring the same problem that we have despite being an island that can easily control importation and immigration. You are quickly sliding down a slope where you will exceed our levels of violence.

 

[JoeB131]

it's also very explicit about the right to bear arms being given to the PEOPLE.

Within the context of a well-regulated militia. WHich doesn't exist anymore because we've replaced the militia with a National Guard, which DOES keep their weapons locked up. Which is a good thing, I guess, that the National Guard didn't let this guy have a gun, but a gun store said, "Hey, just fine with us!"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/lewiston-maine-shooting-manhunt-gunman-police-live-rcna122270

and very explicit about the people owning guns.....anthrax is different than guns joe...

The word Guns never appears anywhere in the Second Amendment. Since we can't own ANY weapons we want, like Anthrax, the government can also regulate who has guns.

 

[JoeB131]

There is nothing hypothetical about it when history tells the story of how we stopped the British from confiscating our own arms which led to the formation of the current country you call home. Given your ideology, we would still be under a monarchy. And when you site British "gun" crime as some poster child of gun control, you forget to mention that most gun crime is then committed by criminals and gangs.

Well, that's kind of a myth, as the Colonists didn't have that many guns, and they had to get them from France.

Also, frankly, the British has a pretty good system. The monarch is a figure head, and the PM is elected by parliament, which is elected by the people. Compared to our awful system, it's not that bad.

But to the point- the British have tough gun laws. They have something like 40 gun homicides a year to our 19000. That seems like a pretty big improvement.

 

[JoeB131]

In the interest of fairness, the man was not wearing a MAGA hat.

Here is the un-photoshopped picture.

 

[Auld Phart]

Within the context of a well-regulated militia. WHich doesn't exist anymore because we've replaced the militia with a National Guard, which DOES keep their weapons locked up. Which is a good thing, I guess, that the National Guard didn't let this guy have a gun, but a gun store said, "Hey, just fine with us!"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/lewiston-maine-shooting-manhunt-gunman-police-live-rcna122270

The word Guns never appears anywhere in the Second Amendment. Since we can't own ANY weapons we want, like Anthrax, the government can also regulate who has guns.

Within the context of a well-regulated militia.

next time you attend a high school reunion...

slap your teachers.
IF it was in the context of being in a militia, the right would have been given to the militia, not the PEOPLE.

 

[Bell Huey]

List of shitty gun nut clichés

1) If xxxxxxx had a 2nd Amendment, it wouldn't have happened

2) Come try and take my guns

3) The answer to gun violence is more guns

4) Limey

5) Bow to your King (But Americans actually fail to mention they pledge allegiance to a flag, lol)

6) We kicked your British asses out (But Americans fail to mention the French saved the British colonies)

7) We have the 2nd Amendment (This one comes out when they're faced with common sense)

8) Guns in the UK are banned

9) Gun free zone

10) Democrats let the criminals out

11) Shooters are mental health patients

There's certainly 11 that regurgitate out all the time. Gun nuts don't have the brain capacity to debate very far whatsoever, so they default to clichés. I wonder how many have appeared in this thread alone, lmfao

Thanks. Guess I am not a gun nut.

 

[Bell Huey]

Sounds AWESOME. Every state should have these laws.

The Second Amendment is about Militias that don't exist anymore.

And here is US code laying out what a militia legally is:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes​

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Harry Dresden]

Within the context of a well-regulated militia. WHich doesn't exist anymore because we've replaced the militia with a National Guard, which DOES keep their weapons locked up. Which is a good thing, I guess, that the National Guard didn't let this guy have a gun, but a gun store said, "Hey, just fine with us!"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/lewiston-maine-shooting-manhunt-gunman-police-live-rcna122270

The word Guns never appears anywhere in the Second Amendment. Since we can't own ANY weapons we want, like Anthrax, the government can also regulate who has guns.

do you know what arms are joe?.....anthrax isnt armaments.....i thought you said you were in the military?.....

 

[JoeB131]

next time you attend a high school reunion...

slap your teachers.
IF it was in the context of being in a militia, the right would have been given to the militia, not the PEOPLE.

Actually, the Founders never would have considered it an issue. Guns were expensive in colonial days, which is why very few people had them. Militia members had to be PROVIDED with weapons more often than not.

do you know what arms are joe?.....anthrax isnt armaments.....i thought you said you were in the military?.....

Biological weapons are considered arms.

 

[JoeB131]

And here is US code laying out what a militia legally is:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes​

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So it sounds like we can take guns away from anyone over 45, and all females who aren't in the Guard.

See, that was simple.

 

[Auld Phart]

So it sounds like we can take guns away from anyone over 45, and all females who aren't in the Guard.

See, that was simple.

So it sounds like we can take guns away from anyone over 45, and all females who aren't in the Guard.

Thanks for proving the right was given to the people, not the militia.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Actually, the Founders never would have considered it an issue. Guns were expensive in colonial days, which is why very few people had them. Militia members had to be PROVIDED with weapons more often than not.



Biological weapons are considered arms.

in a pretty broad sense....they are grouped with weapons of mass destruction.....not with the arms known as guns.....

 

[AZrailwhale]

Actually, the Founders never would have considered it an issue. Guns were expensive in colonial days, which is why very few people had them. Militia members had to be PROVIDED with weapons more often than not.



Biological weapons are considered arms.

That's completely wrong. Militia members were required to provide their own weapons, powder and shot. From the National Park Service website:
Militiamen were required to be armed “as according to law.” This meant that they were to have “a well fixt Firelock Musket, of Musket (69-75 caliber) or Bastard Musket (50-60 caliber) Bore, the Barrel not less than Three Foot and a half long; or other good Fire Arms, to the Satisfaction of the commission officer of the company...” They were also expected to have twenty bullets fit to their gun, one pound of powder, twelve flints, and a cutting sword. Later, bayonets were required for at least half the men in each company. As with the training, fines were levied against those who failed to provide themselves with these arms.

Ammunition was often carried in a cartridge box, a leather bag fitted with a wooden block with holes drilled in to accept a paper cartridge, a sealed tube of paper containing a measured amount of powder (enough for one shot) and a lead ball. Militiamen and minute men also had knapsacks, blankets and wooden canteens.

 

[Pete7469]

They have far worse......in 6 years, (1939-1945) the governments of Europe under the socialists murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children....over 1 million children......in just 6 years after registering guns and banning them.

Gun murder in the U.S. over our entire 247 year history, around 2,470,000.....

So you are right, Europe doesn't have near our homicide rate...they are much worse.....

How many hundreds of years will it take us to match their murder rate?

You can be a Socialist in a Free Country...But you CAN'T be a Free person in a Socialist Country.

 

[Bell Huey]

So it sounds like we can take guns away from anyone over 45, and all females who aren't in the Guard.

See, that was simple.

Good luck with that. With 27 states with permitless/constitutional carry it won’t happen on your lifetime.

 

[JoeB131]

hanks for proving the right was given to the people, not the militia.

The people collectively, not individually.

There are some people who plain old shouldn't have guns.. like that nut who killed 18 people at a bowling alley.

Now, he was a member of the National Guard. But funny thing. The National Guard controlled when he could have guns and ammo. One could even argue that he was "Well-Regulated", which is why he didn't kill anyone on a MUTA-4.

Good luck with that. With 27 states with permitless/constitutional carry it won’t happen on your lifetime.

Oh, you'd be amazed how quickly laws can change. How many states 'banned' gay marriage. Now it's not even an issue.