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

[Roadrunner]

no its kinda sad to think that you think banning guns and collecting them will reduce violence......long before now....the shrinks have predicted the outcome of our society....the inner cities being slums overpacked with people would lead to violence....we are in the society that was depicted in 'future shock' and it will only get worse....but banning the rights of people to defend themselves will not change this....in counties where guns are banned..there is still gun violence and there is violence by machete in africa countries...evil will find an outlet...will it not?

now myself ....i am a liberal gun owner....you will never take my guns..simple as that...but i do know i cannot buy enough ammo to defeat the government...those people are out there...but so are you

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

Machete violence and base ball bat battery would take the place of gun violence.

FEAR BOXCUTTERS!!!!

 

[Flash]

The autoloader that Lewis and Clark took on their expedition that scared the hell out of the Indians was not muzzle loaded, it was magazine fed.

OMG that's so wonderful. Was it just like the 100 round drum magazine in an automatic rifle? What fucking difference does it make.

How about this them. We limit weapons to those available when the Lewis and Clark expedition set out on their journey? You like that idea?

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

 

[zeke]

They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.

Now how many deaths have been caused by those terrible gay marriages and anchor babies. Try and be specific as to the number of deaths.

 

[Roadrunner]

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars.

My great-great-great grandpappy was run over by a wagon while hauling logs at 88 year old.

What a shame wagons weren't banned, but for those damned things he might be with us today.

 

[hadit]

The reason the Founding Fathers included the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution was to give the people the freedom to protect themselves and to have the strength to hold the government accountable for oppression.

And exactly how do you know this. Two can play at that stupid game.

Was there a standing army at the time the country was founded?

You answer that question first and truthfully and I will explain to you the rest of what you asked.

BTW, the fact there was't a standing army indicates the reason for the militia. And IF you were in the militia (which most men of a certain age were) and the militia was called out, the members needed to bring their own weapons. Cause there was no ready supply of weapons to hand out.

This bullshit about how the citizenry had to stay armed to defeat the new American government is a fantasy written by the NRA to sell more guns. And it has worked real well.

All of that is totally irrelevant. The Supreme Court has upheld the traditional understanding of the 2nd Amendment. You're just going to have to change it if you want your argument to mean anything. People are allowed to own guns. Imagine that.

 

[zeke]

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

Hey it's circular logic. Where in the bill of rights does it promise you a weapon with the killing capability of today's modern weapons. I missed that part. Post it up.

 

[Roadrunner]

The autoloader that Lewis and Clark took on their expedition that scared the hell out of the Indians was not muzzle loaded, it was magazine fed.

OMG that's so wonderful. Was it just like the 100 round drum magazine in an automatic rifle? What fucking difference does it make.

How about this them. We limit weapons to those available when the Lewis and Clark expedition set out on their journey? You like that idea?

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

You must mean the Bill of Wrongs.

Libs seem to hate most of the first ten amendments.

 

[Roadrunner]

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

Hey it's circular logic. Where in the bill of rights does it promise you a weapon with the killing capability of today's modern weapons. I missed that part. Post it up.

Where does it tell you you CAN'T have a machine gun?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

You are grasping at straws. They never excluded innovations for better firearms. That is a lame argument.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

You are grasping at straws. They never excluded innovations for better firearms. That is a lame argument.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

the SC says you are incorrect

 

[zeke]

The Supreme Court has upheld the traditional understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court gave in to the bullshit from the NRA. Just like so many others have given in to the assholes with the guns. No news there.

Today's Supreme Court justices have no more knowledge than you or I about what the Founders were thinking when they wrote that poorly worded passage that has caused nothing but tragedy and mis understanding and conflict.

Guarantee the founding fathers would change the passage if they had the chance for a re write. If you NRA types didn't shoot them first.

 

[Roadrunner]

The Supreme Court has upheld the traditional understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court gave in to the bullshit from the NRA. Just like so many others have given in to the assholes with the guns. No news there.

Today's Supreme Court justices have no more knowledge than you or I about what the Founders were thinking when they wrote that poorly worded passage that has caused nothing but tragedy and mis understanding and conflict.

Guarantee the founding fathers would change the passage if they had the chance for a re write. If you NRA types didn't shoot them first.

Have the Constitution amended.

You know how that works.

Get busy.

 

[zeke]

People are allowed to own guns. Imagine that.

Yea, but people are not allowed to own every single type of weapon produced. Imagine that.

 

[hadit]

The Supreme Court has upheld the traditional understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court gave in to the bullshit from the NRA. Just like so many others have given in to the assholes with the guns. No news there.

Today's Supreme Court justices have no more knowledge than you or I about what the Founders were thinking when they wrote that poorly worded passage that has caused nothing but tragedy and mis understanding and conflict.

Guarantee the founding fathers would change the passage if they had the chance for a re write. If you NRA types didn't shoot them first.

Sour grapes. They know better than you, they ruled that way. Live with it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

They couldn't have imagined television either.

Fuck you are stupid. Really stupid.

What the founders couldn't have imagined is the number of really ignorant stupid people who are able to buy guns that the founders never even conceived of. Weapons to fire hundreds of rounds in seconds were not in the thought process of the founders. And if they were, they would have restricted ownership of such guns.

The founding fathers were pragmatic and reasonable.

You gun nutters today are fanatics and unreasonable and the reason I would never give up my guns. I am not worried so much about criminals. It's you fucking gun nutters that concern me.

Meanwhile down in Texas, a man shoots his daughter when the gun he was showing off discharged and his daughter was hit. He has been arrested. When he gets out of jail, I am sure some gun nutter will sell him another gun. Cause he's scared down there in Texas.

His daughter's pretty scared to. Of her dad with a gun.

bs fuckstick

during the amendment process

there certainly was rapid fire arms capable of holding many more then one round

one arm in particular was capable of shooting over 22 rounds a minute

the framers certainly could have excluded such arms but did not

 

[hadit]

People are allowed to own guns. Imagine that.

Yea, but people are not allowed to own every single type of weapon produced. Imagine that.

Irrelevant. Guns are here and they're not going away. Here's an idea, if you don't like guns, don't buy any.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's a failed argument as per Heller

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.

So in other words you approve of the Courts interpreting the Constitution with a mind to changing times if it's an interpretation you like,

but you disapprove of them doing that if it's an interpretation you don't like.

Big surprise.

 

[jon_berzerk]

By the way, there were auto loaders available about the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Lewis and Clark took one with them on their Corps of Discovery in 1804.

Hell everyone knows an auto loader for a muzzle loaded weapon is EXACTLY the same as a one hundred round drum magazine in an automatic weapon. Right? Everybody knows this.

The autoloader that Lewis and Clark took on their expedition that scared the hell out of the Indians was not muzzle loaded, it was magazine fed.

indeed and the framers did not exclude those types of weapons from the second amendment

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

Hey it's circular logic. Where in the bill of rights does it promise you a weapon with the killing capability of today's modern weapons. I missed that part. Post it up.

Where does it tell you you CAN'T have a machine gun?

right in zekes imaginary world

--LOL