Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[Rustic]

This is why the Democrats are now talking about banning ALL semi auto firearms.

You mean that if you are a Democrat you are required to require a total ban of all semi auto firearms? Let me check the Democrat contract. .............still checking.............bare with me...................nope, it ain't in there. Do I have a different version than all the rest of the world? Must have because I know you always tell the truth, butthead.

That's not what Pilot1 said. Please try again.

Here is his direct quote.
This is why the Democrats are now talking about banning ALL semi auto firearms
That is exactly what he said. I am an independent but I registered more as a democrat than anything else and I have NEVER heard one single Democrat around here even mention any of this around here. Don't you nutcases every think before you type or are you a million monkeys with keyboards with an oversee-er that picks out the million to one phrases and just presents them.

Lol
Most firearms are semi-automatic.... Pull the trigger once it fires once.

Then you clean the bore, pore in the powder, put in the rag, put in the ball and tamp it all down, all automatically. LOL. The 1791 semi automatic assault rifle.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, I agree we need to amend. But we also need to amend the 2nd as well. You can't have one without the other.

Just curious, specifically what are the amendments you would propose?

youre wasting your time,,,I have been asking him for months with no answer

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


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

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am sure that the out of control gun killings in America could be resolved if we just had more guns!

 

[progressive hunter]

Oh, I agree we need to amend. But we also need to amend the 2nd as well. You can't have one without the other.

Just curious, specifically what are the amendments you would propose?

youre wasting your time,,,I have been asking him for months with no answer

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


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

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

 

[Andylusion]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

I have no problem with limiting my ability to carry a gun into a private establishment.

That's not hypocritical. What is hypocritical, is telling everyone else they are not allowed to defend themselves, while you have armed security around you like Hillary, or Obama, or any other left-winger.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just curious, specifically what are the amendments you would propose?

youre wasting your time,,,I have been asking him for months with no answer

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


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

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?

 

[M14 Shooter]

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,
so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,
its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.....
... I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current.

Funny how nowhere in your post do you tell us what you think it should say.
Just another dishonest response from Stolen Valor Boy.

 

[progressive hunter]

do yopu

youre wasting your time,,,I have been asking him for months with no answer

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


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

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

I have no problem with limiting my ability to carry a gun into a private establishment.

That's not hypocritical. What is hypocritical, is telling everyone else they are not allowed to defend themselves, while you have armed security around you like Hillary, or Obama, or any other left-winger.

Are you telling me that if I can't afford my own Security Detail that I can't be a Left Winger? Let me check the manual and get right back with you......checking.......reading........perusing.......... Nope, nothing in the left wing guide book on that

 

[hunarcy]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

What I do notice is that the totalitarian leaning prigs can't reference owners and supporters of firearm rights without using pejoratives and lying about their motivations

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I do notice is that the totalitarian leaning prigs can't reference owners and supporters of firearm rights without using pejoratives and lying about their motivations

Since they cannot present sound, compelling arguments, they have little choice.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

do yopu

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


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

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

 

[progressive hunter]

do yopu

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


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

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

but you didnt say how the 2nd should be updated,,,you just gave some long winded incoherent rant that ended about ray guns

come on its only a sentence or two

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

Funny how nowhere in your post do you tell us what you think it -should- say, as requested
Just another dishonest response from Stolen Valor Boy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And who is "They"? Were you invited to the sooper secrit meeting that I was not privy to where all the Democrats were attending? I wonder how a meeting of millions can be kept that sooper secrit from all the rest of us.

I didn't invent anything. I am not the person who said it.

YOU said that banning semiautos is not a requirement to be a Democrat. Doesn't mean that some are NOT talking about it.

Maybe you should have asked HIM to identify who is talking about it.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

do yopu

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


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

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

but you didnt say how the 2nd should be updated,,,you just gave some long winded incoherent rant that ended about ray guns

come on its only a sentence or two

The first thing that has to be done is enter into discussion. You honestly believe that either of us have all the answers by ourselves? The answers are always a compromise. That means, I state by reasoning, you state yours. Others state theirs. In the end, we all agree to a compromise. That is what is lacking in Washington these days. It's never all nor nothing. If you go for all or nothing what you usually end up with is nothing. Now, counter what I said. I know there are points you won't agree with and some you will.

 

[progressive hunter]

do yopu

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

but you didnt say how the 2nd should be updated,,,you just gave some long winded incoherent rant that ended about ray guns

come on its only a sentence or two

The first thing that has to be done is enter into discussion. You honestly believe that either of us have all the answers by ourselves? The answers are always a compromise. That means, I state by reasoning, you state yours. Others state theirs. In the end, we all agree to a compromise. That is what is lacking in Washington these days. It's never all nor nothing. If you go for all or nothing what you usually end up with is nothing. Now, counter what I said. I know there are points you won't agree with and some you will.

whats to discuss,,,I said its fine how it is and has lasted over 200 yrs

maybe the problem is you???

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And who is "They"? Were you invited to the sooper secrit meeting that I was not privy to where all the Democrats were attending? I wonder how a meeting of millions can be kept that sooper secrit from all the rest of us.

I didn't invent anything. I am not the person who said it.

YOU said that banning semiautos is not a requirement to be a Democrat. Doesn't mean that some are NOT talking about it.

Maybe you should have asked HIM to identify who is talking about it.

.

Oh, I see. Now it's Some. You should have said that in the first place and I would have agreed with you.

 

[progressive hunter]

do yopu

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


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

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

I will add that nothing you suggest will do anything but give the government more power over the people,,,

so whos side are you on anyway???

 

[Daryl Hunt]

do yopu

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

but you didnt say how the 2nd should be updated,,,you just gave some long winded incoherent rant that ended about ray guns

come on its only a sentence or two

The first thing that has to be done is enter into discussion. You honestly believe that either of us have all the answers by ourselves? The answers are always a compromise. That means, I state by reasoning, you state yours. Others state theirs. In the end, we all agree to a compromise. That is what is lacking in Washington these days. It's never all nor nothing. If you go for all or nothing what you usually end up with is nothing. Now, counter what I said. I know there are points you won't agree with and some you will.

whats to discuss,,,I said its fine how it is and has lasted over 200 yrs

maybe the problem is you???

Oh, really. Then the Courts are all wrong, right? Even Trump banning with his Executive Order Bump Stocks makes him a Traitor, right? The 1934 Firearms Act is Traitorous, it's all a conspiracy. Has to be. Or could it just be you.