Gun Control and Logic

[progressive hunter]

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

And because it's only two sentences, that makes it long on the tooth.

Said no honest, intelligent person, ever.

And so the Traitor says. You do know that in the times of War, they shoot people like you or at least lock them up,don't you.

WHO ARE THEY???

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

And because it's only two sentences, that makes it long on the tooth. Things were much simplier in 1791 but equally dangerous for other reasons. Those two sentences were directed by the Bill of Rights at preventing a King from taking over once again. We are WAY past that these days. But we have a lot of other issues that we need to address that those two sentences no longer can cover. In fact, the first 2/3rds of it are completely obsolete. The only part that is not is "The Right to Bear Arms" And as I stated before, that is just 5 words. And all the rest needs to be thrown out completely and we need to dwell on just those 5 words.

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is 14 words not 5

you bailed last time I asked, but what would you like it to say???

Are you that hungry for what you perceive as a win that badly? Don't you see the pitfalls in that statement? Or the dangers of the uber rich arming his private army with the express intent of ruling everyone around them? The very thing that you believe enables you to possess weapons you can afford means that the Uber Rich has the same ability but his toys are much more expensive and his intentions may not always be good. Unlike you, he may have the ability to do some real harm real fast with some pretty fantastic weapons. Those 14 words could easily create the very thing it was designed against in 1791, the formation of a King.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay, fruitcake, the law ran out in 1998.

Another lie, stolen valor - the law expired in 2004.

Of the two guns you show, one is a cheap copy of a Colt LE6920 M4 Carbine while the other is a cheap copy of a Colt AR15A4.

Wow. How can you tell that w/o seeing the other side of the mag well?
Easy - you can't.
You chose to lie.
Again:

Psst... the AR15A4 has a detachable carrying handle... the rifle in the pic does not.
And the LE6920 has an A2 front sight assembly... the rifle in the pic does not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie, as explained in the post you refuse to honestly and intelligently respond to.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Read the law. All of it

I have. My statement stands,
You have nothing, stolen valor, and you know it - else, you'd cite text.

Since you are proven to be too lazy to prove yourself right...

I -have- proven myself right, stolen valor - you simply aren't honest enough to admit it.
When you can cite text that supports your position, let us know. I won't wait up.

I gave you the cites to the legal that back me up.

Nothing in those links supports any of your positions, stolen valor.
Disagree? Cite the text.
When you can cite text that supports your position, let us know.
Or, you can keep lying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

And because it's only two sentences, that makes it long on the tooth.

Said no honest, intelligent person, ever.

And so the Traitor says. You do know that in the times of War, they shoot people like you or at least lock them up,don't you.

I'll chalk this up as abject ignorance rather than a lie, as you don't know enough about the subject to create a passable lie.
Stolen valor.

 

[progressive hunter]

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

And because it's only two sentences, that makes it long on the tooth. Things were much simplier in 1791 but equally dangerous for other reasons. Those two sentences were directed by the Bill of Rights at preventing a King from taking over once again. We are WAY past that these days. But we have a lot of other issues that we need to address that those two sentences no longer can cover. In fact, the first 2/3rds of it are completely obsolete. The only part that is not is "The Right to Bear Arms" And as I stated before, that is just 5 words. And all the rest needs to be thrown out completely and we need to dwell on just those 5 words.

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is 14 words not 5

you bailed last time I asked, but what would you like it to say???

Are you that hungry for what you perceive as a win that badly? Don't you see the pitfalls in that statement? Or the dangers of the uber rich arming his private army with the express intent of ruling everyone around them? The very thing that you believe enables you to possess weapons you can afford means that the Uber Rich has the same ability but his toys are much more expensive and his intentions may not always be good. Unlike you, he may have the ability to do some real harm real fast with some pretty fantastic weapons. Those 14 words could easily create the very thing it was designed against in 1791, the formation of a King.

why are you trying to get in my mind???

try sticking to the topic and facts that you dont even know what youre talking about ,,,

at least you now know its more than 5 words,,,

you bailed last time I asked, but what would you like it to say

 

[Hale]

What happens when you can't keep track of your own lies:

Speaking for us Retired Military People, we don't ask for more...I don't want you to do anything than live up to the original contracts made to us in the first place. And you can keep your "Thank you for Serving" to yourself.

Well, you keep working so that I can keep receiving that Military Retirement money. And when you can walk down the street with freedom, you can thank me and others like me that made a career out of protecting your tired, sick perverted little ass.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, fruitcake, the law ran out in 1998.

Another lie, stolen valor - the law expired in 2004.

Of the two guns you show, one is a cheap copy of a Colt LE6920 M4 Carbine while the other is a cheap copy of a Colt AR15A4.

Wow. How can you tell that w/o seeing the other side of the mag well?
Easy - you can't.
You chose to lie.
Again:

The Ban only applied to guns manufactured AFTER 1993. That means if you bought a used AR-15 that was made prior to 1994 then it was exempt. It appears that this is what this clown has done. I can get he's now going to claim he bought them new but that would be a lie. They would not be able to be purchased until 2004 because Colt did not make them from 1994 to 2004 and the After Markets didn't either.

For those that actually used the M-4 and the M-16 we know the difference. And those that have handled both types of AR-15s you also know the difference. But those of you that don't know the difference, there are two basic types of Colt AR-15s, one is a version of the M-16 known as the AR-15A-4 and the other is known as the AR-15 carbine. The Carbine is what MOST AR-15 clones are copied from. It's about 4 to 5 inches shorter. Here is colts site to see it yourself.
Colt's Manufacturing LLC
Just write this troll off and move on. That's what I am going to do. He's no threat to anyone except himself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay, fruitcake, the law ran out in 1998.

Another lie, stolen valor - the law expired in 2004.

Of the two guns you show, one is a cheap copy of a Colt LE6920 M4 Carbine while the other is a cheap copy of a Colt AR15A4.

Wow. How can you tell that w/o seeing the other side of the mag well?
Easy - you can't.
You chose to lie.
Again:

The Ban only applied to guns manufactured AFTER 1993. That means if you bought a used AR-15 that was made prior to 1994 then it was exempt. It appears that this is what this clown has done

Wow. Your entire response is a lie, Stolen Valor.
You -should- be ashamed of yourself -- but you lie about your service, so there's no real question that you'd lie about the current subject.

Make sure you tuck that tail real tight as you run away.

 

[Timmy]

No. I’ve worked shit paying jobs that actually helped my fellow Americans.

No, you've been on welfare most of your life.

Did I have the taxpayer pay for all my food , shelter , healthcare ? No. How about you Mr. Vet?

Maybe instead of us thanking you, maybe you should be thanking us !

Maybe you should thank those who will do what you are too scared to do.
Give up years of your life to be at the call to go wherever and do whatever the country needs you to do

How is joining the military “serving “ the county? Yet , according to the cons ,if you work for then government you are some leech on the taxpayer .

You are joining to be at the call of your country, to go wherever and do whatever you are told. That is service.

And that you think you can compare a soldier to some paper pusher then you have a lot to learn

They are all government workers. Lots of paper pushers in the military by the way .

 

[Timmy]

No .

But I’ll cut to the chase . If you weren’t in ww2 or you weren’t drafted , you didn’t “ serve “ anyone . You joined of your own free will and for your own benefit.

LOL, you're not a bright one kid.

Yep.

I dint fall for the war machine propaganda.

You don't have it in you to do anything for anyone but you kid.

should liberal Americans thank vets for their service if the vets are conservatives who hate liberals and think they are treasonous traitors?


My butler does everything I pay him and ask him to do.

Should I kiss HIS arse, too?

We have a system;

we need some men and women to be soldiers

you volunteered to do the job

we paid you, paid for your training and education, paid for your clothes, food and weapons, pay you military retirement $ (if you stay in a mere 20 years), and YOU get first choice of all the private sector jobs (because you are a vet!)....

and THAT isn't enough for you?

you want MORE?

goddamned liberal conservatives......

whiny and demanding.....

(Smile) We cross child? EVERYONE who wore the uniform has protected you from having to learn a new language

Since when? Maybe back in the 40s .

Or let me guess , we’d all be speaking Korean, Vietnamese , Farsi , Arabic , by now ? Don’t believe the hype .

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government.

Why the FUCK does that make a shit worth of difference? The right is still the right. If your master, the motherfucking government has them, we should too.

Until somebody wants to rid us of the clumsy ass 14th Amendment, the 2nd will not apply to the states. As it technically stands, NOBODY has the authority to regulate firearms.

Don't like it?

QUIT BEING A FUCKING LAWLESS COMMIE AND AMEND!!!!


.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government.

Why the FUCK does that make a shit worth of difference? The right is still the right. If your master, the motherfucking government has them, we should too.

Until somebody wants to rid us of the clumsy ass 14th Amendment, the 2nd will not apply to the states. As it technically stands, NOBODY has the authority to regulate firearms.

Don't like it?

QUIT BEING A FUCKING LAWLESS COMMIE AND AMEND!!!!


.

Quit being a lawless crybaby fascist and amend.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Incorrect.
You manufacture from whole cloth interpretations that do not exist and are not supported by rulings from the high court.

Since I can and already have cited my support/....
.

^^^
A lie. You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....
Still waiting for your intelligent and honest response - hopefully you won't run away.
Again.
Cupcake.

Hey Fruitcake, we already went over this. The Judge that wrote the dissertation on this made up a phrase, the Heller Test.

This is a lie, as explained in the post you refuse to honestly and intelligently respond to.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Read the law. All of it and don't do a 2boy and just read the parts you like. When you are done, you ain't going to like things so much.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.186305/gov.uscourts.mad.186305.93.0.pdf

There is more, a lot more but those are the 3 biggies. And each one is built on the other. In the past, I went in and dug up each and every point but I don't feel the need to do so every month or so because you gunnutters hope that everyone with a lick of sense will forget how to or lose the ability to read. Or just forget what they have already learned. Now, read the whole of all 3 but remember, Scalia is very, very long winded and the worst punishment I can think of punishing you is to have you read his dissertations.

The irony is that most conservatives have come to loath Heller/McDonald and believe that Scalia ‘betrayed’ them.

The fact is that Scalia merely reaffirmed the settled, accepted fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government has the authority to regulate and place restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms, and that the policy of rendering certain individuals prohibited persons is perfectly Constitutional.

 

[Hale]

The irony is that most conservatives have come to loath Heller/McDonald and believe that Scalia ‘betrayed’ them.

The real irony is liberals who pretend to know what "most conservatives" think.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Quit being a lawless crybaby fascist and amend.

Don't need to.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The irony is that most conservatives have come to loath Heller/McDonald and believe that Scalia ‘betrayed’ them.

The real irony is liberals who pretend to know what "most conservatives" think.

I see a bit of Irony here. And I don't reserve the word "Conservative" for you characters. I do reserve the term "Nutcases". I know a number of Conservatives that don't have a problem with the laws we have here. But the nutcases seem to and that goes for both sides.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The irony is that most conservatives have come to loath Heller/McDonald and believe that Scalia ‘betrayed’ them.

The fact is that Scalia merely reaffirmed the settled, accepted fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government has the authority to regulate and place restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms, and that the policy of rendering certain individuals prohibited persons is perfectly Constitutional.

No, you're a dumb fuck.

What Scalia did was save the pants shitters like you from the REAL consequences of the 14th Amendment. He abandon is principles for the sake of preventing an all-out mass panic attack. If he properly interprets the 2A as it relates to the 14th, felons would have unrestricted access to machine guns.

What he technically should have done is declare all federal and state gun laws unconstitutional, requiring a repeal of the shitty, stupid, clumsy-as-fuck 14th. After a period of panic and pants-shitting by pussy motherfuckers, the repeal process would have begun. That would have put the power solely in the hands of the States.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The irony is that most conservatives have come to loath Heller/McDonald and believe that Scalia ‘betrayed’ them.

The fact is that Scalia merely reaffirmed the settled, accepted fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government has the authority to regulate and place restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms, and that the policy of rendering certain individuals prohibited persons is perfectly Constitutional.

No, you're a dumb fuck.

What Scalia did was save the pants shitters like you from the REAL consequences of the 14th Amendment. He abandon is principles for the sake of preventing an all-out mass panic attack. If he properly interprets the 2A as it relates to the 14th, felons would have unrestricted access to machine guns.

What he technically should have done is declare all federal and state gun laws unconstitutional, requiring a repeal of the shitty, stupid, clumsy-as-fuck 14th. After a period of panic and pants-shitting by pussy motherfuckers, the repeal process would have begun. That would have put the power solely in the hands of the States.

.

For the most part,it IS in the power of the state. With the exception of sawed off shotguns and the really nasty weapons of war like automatic weapons, bombs, explosives and the like. I can't imagine even a day with those things being legal waiting for the suits to be settled. You think the criminals and nutcases are hard to handle now, check out how the world would be even for that single day. Danged, you even exceeded the nutcase ruling on this one.

What Scalia and company did was allow the States and lower governments to do the regulations. That's the way it's supposed to be. It's already done without the murder and mayhem of your nutjob idea. But that's not good enough for you. YOU want to make all the laws yourself and the voters be damned. Due Process is involved in the 14th but you overlook the 10th that clearly states that any law that is not covered in the Constitution shall be delegated to the state. And outside of the 1934 Firearms Act, that means that all other firearm regulations must be delegated to the State and lower governments and cannot be done at the Federal Level. You keep misquoting and misunderstanding the 2nd amendment.

 

[Blues Man]

The state of CO does and you were talking about the CO assault weapon regulations which does nothing but ban some cosmetic accessories

Read closely. I'll type slowly. Colorado does NOT have any Assault Rifle regulations. Not a single one. We have have firearm regulations. And what you call comsmetic accessories has broken the AR-15 Cult sickness that we once had. It's only a small part of other changes we made to reduce the behavior to gun homicides in the state. It's a very long list of provable items that has a positive affect each year. Things like getting violent convicted criminals back into prison for trying to buy guns, preventing people from entering into your schools with guns, and more. These are provable and very effective. And it's not all done by just firearms regulations. It's also done by cooperation between Cops and Neighborhoods, education of homes around schools, etc.. Maybe you like your schools, movie houses and public assemblies shot to pieces but we'll pass.

It's distinction without a difference. The ban on cosmetic things like pistol grips or pic rails does nothing to change how the AR 15 operates. And isn't the operation what you piss and moan about all day?

To say that the "weapon of war" is no longer a "weapon of war" because you took off a pistol grip or replaced a folding stock is beyond stupid

They were trying to remove the Cult of the Military Weapons that was running rampant. Yes some were cosmetic. But the folding stock is not cosmetic, it's functional. And placing the pistol grip where the forward handgrip normally would go is also functional. Putting a handgrip where the trigger is is stupid but that was part of the cult. The mounts to mount all the military hardware was not cosmetic, it was functional. The lowering the number of shots in the mags were not cosmetic, that was functional. In the end, the ARs function as a "Sporting Rifle" was not affected one bit. But it's affect as a mass murder weapon was. And the primary affect was it was the cult weapon of choice for mass murder. Since you are affected by the sickness you have no idea what the illness is. But the rest of us are well aware it just got out of hand.

You bought the NRA sales pitch lock stock and barrel (pardon the pun). You didn't go out and murder people enmass. But some others bought into the same thing and did and would have continued. They are still out there. But the Cult is much lower today than it was before. Charles Manson was very proud of the NRA who were wildly successful and never spent a single day in prison or their converts.

Hey Dipshit I already told I don't own and AR IMO the 5.56 round is under powered and doesn't have the stopping power I want

But saying that the lack of a pistol grip makes a gun operate differently is just about one of the dumbest things you have ever said and that's saying something

I never said it was the brightest idea in the world. I also think it's a stupid idea. But remember, we were removing the Cult without removing the gun. Without all these ridiculous addons, all of a sudden they nutcases don't look nearly as sexy posing in their underwear while holding their favorite toy on Facebook and Youtube. If you are having trouble understanding this, close your NRA Hup Hup manual trying to sell you things and go fishing for a day without any interruptions, no cell, no computer, no Gun Mags, just a fishing rod, tackle box, fishing license and a six pack.

There is no cult and there never was. And don't pretend to know anything about me. I am not a member of the NRA