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

[P@triot]

Daryl Hunt, you're simply a Troll throwing out stuff you don't even believe but you just throw it out there anyway.

Poll: 82% of Dems support banning ALL semi-automatic guns - evenly split on repealing the 2nd Amendm

Your cite is so proud of it's graphs that it doesn't even bother to give the origin for them.

“Cite” is short for “citation”, you dumb hillbilly, while “site” is short for website. This is a prime example of why nobody takes you seriously, Duh-ryl.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Nobody cares what you say, Duh-ryl. You’re irrelevant. The American people have spoken. They don’t want the 2nd Amendment “updated”. If they did, they would have legally and properly amend it already.

 

[P@triot]

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line.

Uh...no we don’t. We don’t “have” to do anything. That’s the beauty of America, Adolf.

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.

Their election (and subsequent re-election) is the voice of the people, Adolf. Their only concern should be getting re-elected. We don’t send them to Washington to ignore their constituents and do what they want. You’re such an asshole fascist prick.

 

[Leo123]

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?

Why are you afraid of law abiding citizens being able to open carry? The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. What do you have to fear from them? Hey maybe one of those good citizens will save your ass someday. Frankly I am all for open carry of fully auto by law abiding folks which, BTW, are the vast majority of gun owners. Only a criminal would want decent, law abiding folks to be unarmed.

 

[Blues Man]

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

I'm sure they could be resolved if we targeted criminals who illegally obtain firearms and put the people who do commit crimes with firearms in jail for long sentences.

Possessing a firearm illegally is actually a federal crime and we should treat it as such

 

[Blues Man]

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?

I know what long in the tooth means what does long on the tooth mean?

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Malarkey, not worth reading. I'm just a bottom line guy. When personal beam weapons are available, we will deal with them just as we dealt with machine guns when they came out.

ONCE AGAIN, specifically how would you rewrite the Second Amendment? The current one is ONE SENTENCE. Let's double that and give you two sentences. Go for it.

One real problem. It takes two sides to discuss this. Since the one side refuses to discuss things and constantly resorts to character assinations instead of dialogue then the debate is just a waste of time. You people need to start the dialogue to prove to me that you are willing to actually show willingness to join in a meaningful discussion until then, it's just a waste or my time. So go ahead, claim your victory but the law doesn't agree with you.

we did discuss it,,,its just you dont care what others think and want to give the government more power over the people

it would be better you found a country more to your liking,,,

 

[hunarcy]

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

Do you ever notice how pro-Abortion nuts never talk about the babies they want to kill?

Do you notice how Socialist Medicine nuts never talk about the millions of people killed by it?

Do you notice how Global Warming nuts never talk about how their agenda will necessarily destroy the economy and throw millions into poverty?

Do you notice how Russian Collusion nuts never talk about how Trump was exonerated?

Ever notice how Trump supporters are paranoid dysfunctional dittoheads?

Ever notice how Trump opponents are rude and stupid?

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

I'm sure they could be resolved if we targeted criminals who illegally obtain firearms and put the people who do commit crimes with firearms in jail for long sentences.

Possessing a firearm illegally is actually a federal crime and we should treat it as such

Having the highest percentage of it's population incarcerated out an any nation on earth is not already working? Maybe we should try something else....

 

[Blues Man]

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

I'm sure they could be resolved if we targeted criminals who illegally obtain firearms and put the people who do commit crimes with firearms in jail for long sentences.

Possessing a firearm illegally is actually a federal crime and we should treat it as such

Having the highest percentage of it's population incarcerated out an any nation on earth is not already working? Maybe we should try something else....

How many times do you have to be told we lock up the wrong people?

We have more people in jail for nonviolent crimes than we do violent crimes.

Prison space should be reserved for violent criminals

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Nobody cares what you say, Duh-ryl. You’re irrelevant. The American people have spoken. They don’t want the 2nd Amendment “updated”. If they did, they would have legally and properly amend it already.

The American People haven't spoken just yet. But in 2018, they did speak very loud with the taking over of the House of Representatives. Let's see how loudly the American Public speaks in 2020. Don't bet your hat on anything.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Malarkey, not worth reading. I'm just a bottom line guy. When personal beam weapons are available, we will deal with them just as we dealt with machine guns when they came out.

ONCE AGAIN, specifically how would you rewrite the Second Amendment? The current one is ONE SENTENCE. Let's double that and give you two sentences. Go for it.

One real problem. It takes two sides to discuss this. Since the one side refuses to discuss things and constantly resorts to character assinations instead of dialogue then the debate is just a waste of time. You people need to start the dialogue to prove to me that you are willing to actually show willingness to join in a meaningful discussion until then, it's just a waste or my time. So go ahead, claim your victory but the law doesn't agree with you.

we did discuss it,,,its just you dont care what others think and want to give the government more power over the people

it would be better you found a country more to your liking,,,

NO, we didn't discuss it. I presented my information, you sniped. I agree. You need to find a country with the laws closer to your liking. I hear Yemen is taking applications for Citizenship. Let me know how that works out.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Malarkey, not worth reading. I'm just a bottom line guy. When personal beam weapons are available, we will deal with them just as we dealt with machine guns when they came out.

ONCE AGAIN, specifically how would you rewrite the Second Amendment? The current one is ONE SENTENCE. Let's double that and give you two sentences. Go for it.

One real problem. It takes two sides to discuss this. Since the one side refuses to discuss things and constantly resorts to character assinations instead of dialogue then the debate is just a waste of time. You people need to start the dialogue to prove to me that you are willing to actually show willingness to join in a meaningful discussion until then, it's just a waste or my time. So go ahead, claim your victory but the law doesn't agree with you.

we did discuss it,,,its just you dont care what others think and want to give the government more power over the people

it would be better you found a country more to your liking,,,

NO, we didn't discuss it. I presented my information, you sniped. I agree. You need to find a country with the laws closer to your liking. I hear Yemen is taking applications for Citizenship. Let me know how that works out.

we discussed it and I disagreed with you and that hurt your feelings,,,,
and its you that dont like our laws not me,,,thats why you want them changed and I want them to stay as they are,,,

 

[Markle]

Talking with you [Markle] is like trying to play basketball with a completely deflated basketball.

Spoken like a true Progressive.

You cannot refute any of my points so you're left with childish personal attacks. I'm sure you're proud of your cutism. Grow up, challenge my FACTS. You can't, that's why this is what you resort to, not just you, but all Progressives.

 

[Markle]

Your [Markle] cite is so proud of it's graphs that it doesn't even bother to give the origin for them. That tells me that someone took the time and trouble just to make the shit up. Danged, you can't even give a decent cite [site] that even makes a decent attempt at hiding the lie.

I think you have overreached my patience on this one. You have absolutely nothing to say that I care to see.

I think you are confusing cite and site.

Tell me which one you want and I'll provide it to you. This answer you responded to here has the source and workable link at the bottom of the page.

Progressives are on the run and in a panic! All the investigations they demanded are finding the Democrats at fault and having committed the crimes.

Proof Daryl Hunt has run out of ideas.

 

[Markle]

Having the highest percentage of it's population incarcerated out an any nation on earth is not already working? Maybe we should try something else....

Perhaps you're right!

Two huge countries, China and India supposedly have fewer citizens per capita in prison than the US.

How do they do that? They shoot all drug offenders. That would work, wouldn't it?

What do you say Vandalshandle? Adopt their solution?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Malarkey, not worth reading. I'm just a bottom line guy. When personal beam weapons are available, we will deal with them just as we dealt with machine guns when they came out.

ONCE AGAIN, specifically how would you rewrite the Second Amendment? The current one is ONE SENTENCE. Let's double that and give you two sentences. Go for it.

One real problem. It takes two sides to discuss this. Since the one side refuses to discuss things and constantly resorts to character assinations instead of dialogue then the debate is just a waste of time. You people need to start the dialogue to prove to me that you are willing to actually show willingness to join in a meaningful discussion until then, it's just a waste or my time. So go ahead, claim your victory but the law doesn't agree with you.

we did discuss it,,,its just you dont care what others think and want to give the government more power over the people

it would be better you found a country more to your liking,,,

NO, we didn't discuss it. I presented my information, you sniped. I agree. You need to find a country with the laws closer to your liking. I hear Yemen is taking applications for Citizenship. Let me know how that works out.

we discussed it and I disagreed with you and that hurt your feelings,,,,
and its you that dont like our laws not me,,,thats why you want them changed and I want them to stay as they are,,,

There was no discussion from you. I think you have nothing of worth to say. Have a nice day.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Malarkey, not worth reading. I'm just a bottom line guy. When personal beam weapons are available, we will deal with them just as we dealt with machine guns when they came out.

ONCE AGAIN, specifically how would you rewrite the Second Amendment? The current one is ONE SENTENCE. Let's double that and give you two sentences. Go for it.

One real problem. It takes two sides to discuss this. Since the one side refuses to discuss things and constantly resorts to character assinations instead of dialogue then the debate is just a waste of time. You people need to start the dialogue to prove to me that you are willing to actually show willingness to join in a meaningful discussion until then, it's just a waste or my time. So go ahead, claim your victory but the law doesn't agree with you.

we did discuss it,,,its just you dont care what others think and want to give the government more power over the people

it would be better you found a country more to your liking,,,

NO, we didn't discuss it. I presented my information, you sniped. I agree. You need to find a country with the laws closer to your liking. I hear Yemen is taking applications for Citizenship. Let me know how that works out.

we discussed it and I disagreed with you and that hurt your feelings,,,,
and its you that dont like our laws not me,,,thats why you want them changed and I want them to stay as they are,,,

There was no discussion from you. I think you have nothing of worth to say. Have a nice day.

There's nothing to discuss. The Constitution (despite your misinterpretation) protect out Rights to own weapons. There is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One real problem. It takes two sides to discuss this. Since the one side refuses to discuss things and constantly resorts to character assinations instead of dialogue then the debate is just a waste of time. You people need to start the dialogue to prove to me that you are willing to actually show willingness to join in a meaningful discussion until then, it's just a waste or my time. So go ahead, claim your victory but the law doesn't agree with you.

we did discuss it,,,its just you dont care what others think and want to give the government more power over the people

it would be better you found a country more to your liking,,,

NO, we didn't discuss it. I presented my information, you sniped. I agree. You need to find a country with the laws closer to your liking. I hear Yemen is taking applications for Citizenship. Let me know how that works out.

we discussed it and I disagreed with you and that hurt your feelings,,,,
and its you that dont like our laws not me,,,thats why you want them changed and I want them to stay as they are,,,

There was no discussion from you. I think you have nothing of worth to say. Have a nice day.

There's nothing to discuss. The Constitution (despite your misinterpretation) protect out Rights to own weapons. There is nothing you can do about it.

The Legislators, Courts and Voters disagree with you and there is nothing you can do about it. Let's see, if almost everyone else is saying one thing and you are saying something else does that mean almost everyone else is wrong?

 

[Ambivalent1]

we did discuss it,,,its just you dont care what others think and want to give the government more power over the people

it would be better you found a country more to your liking,,,

NO, we didn't discuss it. I presented my information, you sniped. I agree. You need to find a country with the laws closer to your liking. I hear Yemen is taking applications for Citizenship. Let me know how that works out.

we discussed it and I disagreed with you and that hurt your feelings,,,,
and its you that dont like our laws not me,,,thats why you want them changed and I want them to stay as they are,,,

There was no discussion from you. I think you have nothing of worth to say. Have a nice day.

There's nothing to discuss. The Constitution (despite your misinterpretation) protect out Rights to own weapons. There is nothing you can do about it.

The Legislators, Courts and Voters disagree with you and there is nothing you can do about it. Let's see, if almost everyone else is saying one thing and you are saying something else does that mean almost everyone else is wrong?

Sure they do, that's why none of us has guns anymore.
(rolling eyes) Who cares what voters and legislators think? Has the SC said you can come take my weapons son?