Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It only affected open carry, so yes, it was an open carry issue, even though you lamely attempt to subsume it into guns in general, so great is your lust to take away everyone's guns but your own.

I changed my mind. You're not one of us, you're a hypocrite that owns a gun while demanding nobody else does.

Holy shit dude. You got it bad.
That's the take away you got from our exchange eh?

You may be a gun nutter when you have to phrase things; "you're not one of us".
You can't point to a single fucking post I made calling for taking anyone's guns away.
And you sure can't answer a straight forward question. A sure fire sign of a "gun nutter extreme".

Been fun though dude. You gun nut you.

You're the jackass calling people "gun nutters" because they support the 2nd Amendment.


I'm not a psychologist but I know that there's a reason people do things and the only one that makes sense for you is that you'd like to own a gun, but can't because you're a felon or you beat your girl and the law prevents you from having guns. Your pitched hatred of gun ownership and advocacy speaks volumes more than your claim to be a gun owner. It says you're bitter, jealous of us who have guns while you can't. Nothing else explains the seeming dichotomy of your love-hate regard for gun rights.

I truly feel sorry for you.

Wow, that ridiculous rant just takes my breath away.

Here I am briefly hoping that's a permanent condition.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

2nd amendment rights are not about hunting deer.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense (DC v. Heller (2008)). It is not an unlimited right, it is not the right to carry any type of weapon in any manner desired anywhere one wishes.

And it has nothing to do whatsoever with 'overthrowing' the Federal government should a delusional minority subjectively perceive the Federal government 'tyrannical,' as the Second Amendment does not trump the First.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

2nd amendment rights are not about hunting deer.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense (DC v. Heller (2008)). It is not an unlimited right, it is not the right to carry any type of weapon in any manner desired anywhere one wishes.

And it has nothing to do whatsoever with 'overthrowing' the Federal government should a delusional minority subjectively perceive the Federal government 'tyrannical,' as the Second Amendment does not trump the First.

The Revolutionary War was won with minority support. That's one. Two, the very wording of the 2nd Amendment militates against your strange Leftist theory. Maybe you thought the Jedi mind trick would keep people from seeing "Necessary to the security of a free state". Nothing about self defense there.

Stop lying, Leftists!

 

[orogenicman]

Here is the real evidence you failed to examine.

Guy Smith? Really? Bhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha!

A far left drone commenting? Really? Bhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha!

Far left? Nope, sorry to disappoint you, but I map right smack in the middle.

 

[zeke]

Two, the very wording of the 2nd Amendment militates against your strange Leftist theory.

Hey I learned something from you mike. A new word. Militate, An intransitive verb.; to have weight or effect.
But I am not sure your context works though. Try it in a new sentence. See if it fits better.

 

[zeke]

Here I am briefly hoping that's a permanent condition.

Dayumm dude. You really have had a bad day. Now you're wishing an untimely death on some one?
What's up with that?

 

[zeke]

Far left? Nope, sorry to disappoint you, but I map right smack in the middle.

If you are not a fire breathing 2A gun nutter you won't be judged to be anything but a far lefty. At least you are doing better than I did. I've been called a drug addict, a gun hater, a girlfriend beater, gun grabber and some others that don't come right to mind. But I never was called a far lefty. They must have forgotten about that.

 

[orogenicman]

Far left? Nope, sorry to disappoint you, but I map right smack in the middle.

If you are not a fire breathing 2A gun nutter you won't be judged to be anything but a far lefty. At least you are doing better than I did. I've been called a drug addict, a gun hater, a girlfriend beater, gun grabber and some others that don't come right to mind. But I never was called a far lefty. They must have forgotten about that.

Don't encourage them. lol

 

[WinterBorn]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

Yes, at the time the US Constitution was written, the musket and the muzzle-loading rifle, were the arms of the day. But they were also the high tech weapons used by the military. The farmers and store owners had the same weapons as the top infantry soldiers.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No, I don't believe that is what I said at all.

 

[orogenicman]

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

Yes, at the time the US Constitution was written, the musket and the muzzle-loading rifle, were the arms of the day. But they were also the high tech weapons used by the military. The farmers and store owners had the same weapons as the top infantry soldiers.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No, I don't believe that is what I said at all.

Then you agree that there should be limits to what technology the citizenry has a right to possess. I agree.

 

[S.J.]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Tell us oh wise one, what are the real causes of gun violence in America?

People who have no regard for human life are the cause of gun violence (and every other kind). The same person that kills with a gun will kill with a knife, baseball bat, screwdriver, etc. Idiots like you, however, think it's the gun that does the killing.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

Yes, at the time the US Constitution was written, the musket and the muzzle-loading rifle, were the arms of the day. But they were also the high tech weapons used by the military. The farmers and store owners had the same weapons as the top infantry soldiers.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No, I don't believe that is what I said at all.

Then you agree that there should be limits to what technology the citizenry has a right to possess. I agree.

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

 

[orogenicman]

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

Yes, at the time the US Constitution was written, the musket and the muzzle-loading rifle, were the arms of the day. But they were also the high tech weapons used by the military. The farmers and store owners had the same weapons as the top infantry soldiers.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No, I don't believe that is what I said at all.

Then you agree that there should be limits to what technology the citizenry has a right to possess. I agree.

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, at the time the US Constitution was written, the musket and the muzzle-loading rifle, were the arms of the day. But they were also the high tech weapons used by the military. The farmers and store owners had the same weapons as the top infantry soldiers.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No, I don't believe that is what I said at all.

Then you agree that there should be limits to what technology the citizenry has a right to possess. I agree.

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things. In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

 

[orogenicman]

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No, I don't believe that is what I said at all.

Then you agree that there should be limits to what technology the citizenry has a right to possess. I agree.

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.

Such as?

In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I don't believe that is what I said at all.

Then you agree that there should be limits to what technology the citizenry has a right to possess. I agree.

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.

Such as?

In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?

You don't see partisan politics as worse?
You don't see a completely convoluted and screwed up tax system as worse?
You don't see huge gov't waste as worse?
You don't see letting our veterans slip through the cracks and ending up homeless as worse?

I could go on, but I think you understand what I mean.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, at the time the US Constitution was written, the musket and the muzzle-loading rifle, were the arms of the day. But they were also the high tech weapons used by the military. The farmers and store owners had the same weapons as the top infantry soldiers.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No one is saying such a thing. However, if I want to have what you call an assault rifle, I can whether you like it or not.

Only certain kinds. And not for long. Enjoy it while you can.

When should I expect you to personally come and try to take it?

I won't have to.

You wouldn't be able to nor do you have the guts to try pussy.

 

[WinterBorn]

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No one is saying such a thing. However, if I want to have what you call an assault rifle, I can whether you like it or not.

Only certain kinds. And not for long. Enjoy it while you can.

When should I expect you to personally come and try to take it?

I won't have to.

You wouldn't be able to nor do you have the guts to try pussy.

Really? He is talking about changing the laws, and then he is challenged to come and get the guns himself? And since he would not be in a position to be the person who enforces these new laws, you call him a pussy? Really?

And you wonder why people get pissed off at gun people? It is this "I won guns, so I am a badass and you are a pussy" mentality that a few keep spouting.

You want guns? Cool. Follow the rules and use them safely. Have a modicum of respect for the rest of the world, whether they show you any or not. That is what is needed. Not this "A gun is the best answer for everything"!

And I am a gun owner, shooter, and vehement defender of the 2nd Amendment. But jeez, lighten up with the bullshit. Make them look like the crazy ones.

 

[Conservative65]

No one is saying such a thing. However, if I want to have what you call an assault rifle, I can whether you like it or not.

Only certain kinds. And not for long. Enjoy it while you can.

When should I expect you to personally come and try to take it?

I won't have to.

You wouldn't be able to nor do you have the guts to try pussy.

Really? He is talking about changing the laws, and then he is challenged to come and get the guns himself? And since he would not be in a position to be the person who enforces these new laws, you call him a pussy? Really?

And you wonder why people get pissed off at gun people? It is this "I won guns, so I am a badass and you are a pussy" mentality that a few keep spouting.

You want guns? Cool. Follow the rules and use them safely. Have a modicum of respect for the rest of the world, whether they show you any or not. That is what is needed. Not this "A gun is the best answer for everything"!

And I am a gun owner, shooter, and vehement defender of the 2nd Amendment. But jeez, lighten up with the bullshit. Make them look like the crazy ones.

He's talking about something the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to have taken away. My challenge to him, if you read it, was that if he thought so, he should personally put it into effect.

Anyone that wants to ban guns, like he does, has already shown he's crazy. I need do nothing else.

One thing I can guarantee you son is if I said I didn't think you should have something you have a right to own, I'd be the one to take it from you. I wouldn't be a puss like him and say it should happen then expect someone else to do it for me.

I follow the rules with gun ownership. What he is proposing is that the rules I've followed be made more stringent to fulfill some concept that by banning them, it will prevent those who would misuse them from doing so.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only certain kinds. And not for long. Enjoy it while you can.

When should I expect you to personally come and try to take it?

I won't have to.

You wouldn't be able to nor do you have the guts to try pussy.

Really? He is talking about changing the laws, and then he is challenged to come and get the guns himself? And since he would not be in a position to be the person who enforces these new laws, you call him a pussy? Really?

And you wonder why people get pissed off at gun people? It is this "I won guns, so I am a badass and you are a pussy" mentality that a few keep spouting.

You want guns? Cool. Follow the rules and use them safely. Have a modicum of respect for the rest of the world, whether they show you any or not. That is what is needed. Not this "A gun is the best answer for everything"!

And I am a gun owner, shooter, and vehement defender of the 2nd Amendment. But jeez, lighten up with the bullshit. Make them look like the crazy ones.

He's talking about something the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to have taken away. My challenge to him, if you read it, was that if he thought so, he should personally put it into effect.

Anyone that wants to ban guns, like he does, has already shown he's crazy. I need do nothing else.

One thing I can guarantee you son is if I said I didn't think you should have something you have a right to own, I'd be the one to take it from you. I wouldn't be a puss like him and say it should happen then expect someone else to do it for me.

I follow the rules with gun ownership. What he is proposing is that the rules I've followed be made more stringent to fulfill some concept that by banning them, it will prevent those who would misuse them from doing so.

And he believes that assault rifles are a problem. I am sure he is supporting candidates that promise to fight to ban them. He isn't going to personally go around and collect them all up. He sounds like he is wanting to bring back the ban that Clinton put into effect.

Just like I worked to have the 10 Commandments monument removed from the Alabama Supreme Courthouse lobby. I am not a pussy because I didn't drive a forklift over myself. I worked within the system.


But my point is this nonsense of calling people pussys because they don't agree with you but are not going door to door to collect guns is bullshit. First off, be as active and work to protect our rights. And second, the name calling does the cause more harm than it does your image good. Internet badassery is always comical, son.