Ex-Supreme Court Justice Wants to Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons-What Is a Semi-Automatic Weapon?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That’s exactly what it means.

No one is ‘coming for your guns’ – the notion is as moronic as it is wrong.

We do not believe you.

 

[xyz]

Also, say they ban the AR15.

Collecting them from people is unrealistic. It would make much sense to just stop further sale, not to take them from people.

 

[toobfreak]

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

One retired Supreme Court justice decides to say the Big Dirty just to stir up the hive, and now EVERYONE IS AFTER ALL OUR GUNS.

do you intentionally keep missing the bill put in play recently to ban semi-automatic guns?

GIGGILE GIGGLE HA HA AT YOU TEE HEE TEE HEE.

i'll bet it's kinda stupid when i do it but you're the clever one for acting 12.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

once again since you keep selectively missing this shit.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

and again cause you do tend to gloss over facts you don't like.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

fuckers are coming for guns. only an idiot would be denying it at this point.

go ahead. deny it again.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

They expected that to pass about as much as the Republicans expected to repeal Obamacare while Obama was in office.
If they caught that car, they'd shit themselves.

i don't care. they are openly stating they are coming for them. damn good thing it won't pass but if you're NOT coming for guns, you'd NEVER put this in play.

no one is falling for the shit anymore so give it up with the "giggle, no one is coming for your guns, giggle" shit.

just because they're not going to succeed doesn't mean they're not trying now does it?

That’s exactly what it means.

No one is ‘coming for your guns’ – the notion is as moronic as it is wrong.

Dianne Feinstein Says Her Goal is to Disarm All Americans!!! ( 60 Minutes - 1995 )

Former Justice John Paul Stevens calls for repeal of the Second Amendment

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

There is no overkill involved. An AR-15 is nothing more than an ugly looking semi-automatic rifle. It has no features which make it any more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol.

You are correct but who cares even if it is "overkill"? I know I don't. I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire. They are good things.

My car can go faster than any speed limit. Isn't that overkill? Do these Moon Bats want to restrict everything that they consider to be overkill?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

 

[Flash]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

There is no overkill involved. An AR-15 is nothing more than an ugly looking semi-automatic rifle. It has no features which make it any more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol.

You are correct but who cares even if it is "overkill"? I know I don't. I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire. They are good things.

My car can go faster than any speed limit. Isn't that overkill? Do these Moon Bats want to restrict everything that they consider to be overkill?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

 

[jon_berzerk]

That’s exactly what it means.

No one is ‘coming for your guns’ – the notion is as moronic as it is wrong.

We do not believe you.

more so when they are coming right and saying it these days

 

[toobfreak]

There is no overkill involved. An AR-15 is nothing more than an ugly looking semi-automatic rifle. It has no features which make it any more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol.

You are correct but who cares even if it is "overkill"? I know I don't. I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire. They are good things.

My car can go faster than any speed limit. Isn't that overkill? Do these Moon Bats want to restrict everything that they consider to be overkill?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

 

[Flash]

You are correct but who cares even if it is "overkill"? I know I don't. I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire. They are good things.

My car can go faster than any speed limit. Isn't that overkill? Do these Moon Bats want to restrict everything that they consider to be overkill?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

I agree. the crime should never be possession of an "arm". Like you I think all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Of course the Constitution is not the friend of the Left. It is an impediment to establishing this country as a socialist shithole.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

I agree. the crime should never be possession of an "arm". Like you I think all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Of course the Constitution is not the friend of the Left. It is an impediment to establishing this country as a socialist shithole.

Of course the Constitution is not the friend of the Left. It is an impediment to establishing this country as a socialist shithole

and that is why the Constitution exists

 

[Taz]

There is no overkill involved. An AR-15 is nothing more than an ugly looking semi-automatic rifle. It has no features which make it any more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol.

You are correct but who cares even if it is "overkill"? I know I don't. I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire. They are good things.

My car can go faster than any speed limit. Isn't that overkill? Do these Moon Bats want to restrict everything that they consider to be overkill?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

You still have the right to carry, just not those. Your rights are untouched.

Show Me where the Second say, "Except for these items here".

BTW. Take a trip through history and discover how banning ANYTHING has never worked.

Banning Americans from owning nukes has stop us from blowing up our own country.

 

[Taz]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

Let me explain it this way as you are not a gun user. Why do you drive an automatic and not a stick? Worse, imagine if your car had three gears, but you had to stop the car to change from one gear to the next. Imagine if your cellphone could only do telephone OR internet OR games. Not all at the same time. Imagine when you bought a TV or DVR, it could only watch one channel or record one station and not several.

Would you consider any of the better, popular choices overkill? Of course not. The question seems ridiculous because you take your options for granted. It is the same way with a semi-auto. They have had semi-auto since the Old West because it simply makes the firearm better, more fun, easier to use for more stuff. Less hassle to operate. Better sport. Only from a military aspect does it also make the gun more potentially deadlier.

People would live healthier if all they ate was Kale. People would be killed in far fewer car accidents if they were all made to only go 25 mph. People would spend far less time on cellphones if they were only made to make telephone calls. People would spend more time with their families instead of watching TV if TV was only on from 8 to 11, and there was only 3-5 TV channels like when I was a kid. And guns would be less easily misused to hurt others if they only shot one round of .22LR at a time.

But just as no one wants to live on Kale, people want and need to go faster, cellphones are desired for other things, and folks will watch all the TV they can get, guns are both desired for and needed for more than plinking tin cans. The shooting and hunting sports is a wide and diverse field, firearms is a vast and proud tradition of history with many fans and adherents, and no one can define the needs of "civilian use;" just because today, they may sit in a closet collecting dust, or out on the field target practicing and competition or bringing home food, who can say what lays ahead a year from now, five years from now or 25 years from now? History shows that war, civilian suppression, oppression, and abuse are cyclic, and if it ever comes down to tyranny (and many feel we are getting close to that now), do you really want to be left there with nothing but your finger to point in your defense? Or are you just willing to lay down, surrender and die?

The one thing history teaches is that governments always act in THEIR best interests, not in those of its people. Only a fool thinks all these efforts to limit, restrict and ban guns is "for the public good," and once gone, you're not getting them back, and free of that restraint of an armed populace, even the best of governments with good intentions are now free to do whatever the hell they damn well please. I choose not to gamble on their good will.

So you're ok with some restrictions on cars (like a speed limit) but you're against any kind of controls for weapons? And it's because you're paranoid of your own government? Geez, that's pretty scary.

What is pretty scary is that your mouth moves and your fingers type, but you habitually misread other's statements and put words in their mouth they never even said! Then when you come to the most idiotic mis-conclusions, you accuse and label others based on your own inability to even fucking read.

Then don’t bore us with all that fartsmoke. You have a point, make it, don’t spend 20 minutes farting all over the place.

 

[Taz]

When all you guns freaks WASH THE BLOOD OFF YOUR HANDS FROM ALL THE DEAD CHILDREN!!!

Probably about one-one hundredth of the blood that flows out of abortion clinics.

So you agree with me. Good for you.

 

[Taz]

You are correct but who cares even if it is "overkill"? I know I don't. I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire. They are good things.

My car can go faster than any speed limit. Isn't that overkill? Do these Moon Bats want to restrict everything that they consider to be overkill?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Banning Americans from owning nukes has stop us from blowing up our own country.

I would like you to introduce me to an individual who has the capability and money to own a nuke. Whole fucking countries can't get nukes. This is, by far, the biggest bullshit red herring of the lot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When all you guns freaks WASH THE BLOOD OFF YOUR HANDS FROM ALL THE DEAD CHILDREN!!!

Probably about one-one hundredth of the blood that flows out of abortion clinics.

So you agree with me. Good for you.

Well I heard a stat on the radio today: Every day 11 teens get killed by texting and driving. When are you going to go after cell phones?

 

[Taz]

Banning Americans from owning nukes has stop us from blowing up our own country.

I would like you to introduce me to an individual who has the capability and money to own a nuke. Whole fucking countries can't get nukes. This is, by far, the biggest bullshit red herring of the lot.

So you’re saying that if you had a nuke the government would let you be?

 

[Taz]

When all you guns freaks WASH THE BLOOD OFF YOUR HANDS FROM ALL THE DEAD CHILDREN!!!

Probably about one-one hundredth of the blood that flows out of abortion clinics.

So you agree with me. Good for you.

Well I heard a stat on the radio today: Every day 11 teens get killed by texting and driving. When are you going to go after cell phones?

Not what we’re talking about. Go start a thread if you want.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you’re saying that if you had a nuke the government would let you be?

No, I am saying please introduce me to the guy who can afford, and has the ability to acquire, a fucking nuke. We're not even talking about a delivery system. Just the device itself. I'll wait for the introduction.

 

[Taz]

So you’re saying that if you had a nuke the government would let you be?

No, I am saying please introduce me to the guy who can afford, and has the ability to acquire, a fucking nuke. We're not even talking about a delivery system. Just the device itself. I'll wait for the introduction.

So any rich person with enough money can have a nuke in the US, say, next door to you?