Gun Control Compromise

[Dale Smith]

Careful now, you are expressing views like my own. If it ever gets out, you are going to have to turn in your secrit gunnutter decoder ring.

I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.

Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.

My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.

Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies



Guns are not toys.

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

See, that's where you are losing many people. It's not the "militia" amendment. The operative clause (the one that actually does something) is clear that the individual right is not to be infringed. The infringe part is not ambiguous.

Well, no, it is the militia amendment. Only the wealthy could afford guns in the 18th century... they were kind of a luxury item. The Founding Slave rapists didn't want the peasants having them.

Wrong. Nobody interpreted it that way. That interpretation was raised for the first time in Heller or the case preceding it. That bullshit argument is the new kid on the block.

You need to look up US v. Miller... that's when they established pretty clearly that the Second was about militias and the government could regulate whether or not Al Capone could have a Tommy Gun or not.

{{meta.pageTitle}}

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

No, moron, you need to look up and actually read Miller.....where the opinion stated that weapons that would be used in a "Milita" would be protected, you doofus.... so that Tommy gun, a military weapon would have been protected....you moron...

{{meta.pageTitle}}

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia


The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

In addition about the decision, Justice McReynolds wrote:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.[6]

They love Miller, but thumb their noses when we call the Hughes Amendment unconstitutional.

I have little remaining patience with these fools.

I agree. It's made the M-16 prices go through the roof. A M-16 should not cost 15K for something that is just about on it's last leg or up to 30K for pristine model. A brand new M-16 or M-4 doesn't cost any more to manufacture than a brand new LE6920 since they share almost ALL parts. The LE6920 can be had for under 1000 bucks.

Funny, if you have a FFL or EFL, you can purchase an AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) in excellent condition for right around 3 grand. Anyone that fired a "M-16" in the Air Force from 1964 to 1992, chances are it was one of those. The only difference is the charging handle is a diamond shape instead of a T shape and the Model Number on the side reads AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) where the M-16 was stenciled in AFTER 1969 when the Army bought the Colt AR-15 Model 602 but since it was now in the US Army, it had to have a M designator so the AR was not put on it. If I had the undying need to own a M-16 I think I would go for the cheaper buy that is also a real piece of history.

I wonder if we can get the Hughes Amendment thrown out. There has to be a way since it really doesn't make much sense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Careful now, you are expressing views like my own. If it ever gets out, you are going to have to turn in your secrit gunnutter decoder ring.

I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.

Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.

My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.

Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies



Guns are not toys.

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

 

[Dale Smith]

I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.

Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.

My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.

Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies



Guns are not toys.

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

So, you are saying and admitting that the military works at the leisure of this corporate entity you call the federal "gubermint" and would obey orders to kill it's own citizens if ordered AND the best course of action is to simply surrender to "authority"? Correct?????

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is why our side will never trust your lying dishonest full-of-shit side.

You are all obviously seeking complete confescation. Otherwise you wouldn't be such lying cocksuckers.

There will be no compromise.

I agree. You nuts will eventually force us to confescate all your guns because you aren't capable of even the most sensible laws. The NRA long ago learned the gun nut was the best customer, regardless of how irresponsible selling to him was.

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%....so you don't make any sense....our gun crime rates are going down, not up, you doofus.....which means Americans are more responsible with their guns, not less.....

it's gone down in all areas whether there is guns present or not. You misrepresent the data and conveniently leave that part out. I use NYC as an example because in the 80s, it was the murder capital of the world. By the year 2005, it was the lowest murder rate of ALL Metro Cities in the entire world. This wasn't done by arming the citizens. If you leave out the social programs, it doesn't matter if you have more guns or fewer guns. It stays a cesspool. If you put in good quality social programs then crime goes down, not just murder rates. If you are having to depend on arming your citizens then maybe you shouldn't have a city in the first place.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

So, you are saying and admitting that the military works at the leisure of this corporate entity you call the federal "gubermint" and would obey orders to kill it's own citizens if ordered AND the best course of action is to simply surrender to "authority"? Correct?????

With that childish BS thing you are doing, I ain't saying nothing to you. Shall I tell you what you are saying? Should I be that rude and just as wrong?

 

[Dale Smith]

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

So, you are saying and admitting that the military works at the leisure of this corporate entity you call the federal "gubermint" and would obey orders to kill it's own citizens if ordered AND the best course of action is to simply surrender to "authority"? Correct?????

With that childish BS thing you are doing, I ain't saying nothing to you. Shall I tell you what you are saying? Should I be that rude and just as wrong?

You are an idiot, Daryl.........you don't have to say anymore than what you have, moron. You have already revealed yourself to be a gutless coward.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

So, you are saying and admitting that the military works at the leisure of this corporate entity you call the federal "gubermint" and would obey orders to kill it's own citizens if ordered AND the best course of action is to simply surrender to "authority"? Correct?????

With that childish BS thing you are doing, I ain't saying nothing to you. Shall I tell you what you are saying? Should I be that rude and just as wrong?

You are an idiot, Daryl.........you don't have to say anymore than what you have, moron. You have already revealed yourself to be a gutless coward.

Say goodnight Gracie.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.

Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.

My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.

Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies



Guns are not toys.

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

Do you know what would give the rest of the words more undeniable meaning again?

Hint.

Another revolutionary war as was anticipated in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

Do you know what would give the rest of the words more undeniable meaning again?

Hint.

Another revolutionary war as was anticipated in the Declaration of Independence.

There are those in here that have openly and behind close doors wanted a Revolution. Well, we get one every 2 and 4 years.

 

[Dale Smith]

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

So, you are saying and admitting that the military works at the leisure of this corporate entity you call the federal "gubermint" and would obey orders to kill it's own citizens if ordered AND the best course of action is to simply surrender to "authority"? Correct?????

With that childish BS thing you are doing, I ain't saying nothing to you. Shall I tell you what you are saying? Should I be that rude and just as wrong?

You are an idiot, Daryl.........you don't have to say anymore than what you have, moron. You have already revealed yourself to be a gutless coward.

Say goodnight Gracie.

Yeah, best that you walk away, ya illiterate fuck.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.

Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.

My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.

Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies



Guns are not toys.

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

And there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes ‘the militia’ to take up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

There’s nothing as to the ‘criteria of tyranny’; no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’ allowing the rights enshrined in the First Amendment to be discarded and replaced with armed rebellion.

What’s moot is the argument as to what the Second Amendment means, as the Heller Court has already given us that meaning: the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess handguns pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to government regulation and restrictions.

The Second Amendment affords citizens the means by which to defend themselves from criminal attack and lawlessness, not defend against a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[Chuz Life]

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

And there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes ‘the militia’ to take up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

There’s nothing as to the ‘criteria of tyranny’; no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’ allowing the rights enshrined in the First Amendment to be discarded and replaced with armed rebellion.

What’s moot is the argument as to what the Second Amendment means, as the Heller Court has already given us that meaning: the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess handguns pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to government regulation and restrictions.

The Second Amendment affords citizens the means by which to defend themselves from criminal attack and lawlessness, not defend against a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

How many bottles of snake oil do you actually have in that carpet bag of yours?

 

[Dale Smith]

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

The 2nd Amendment is there not just for personal protection. It is there in case "government" becomes too overbearing, obtrusive, tyrannical and ceases serving the will of the people that finances it. Since this corporate entity has gone to so much trouble to stage mass shooting events like Sandy Hoax and the Orlando shooting to staged Operation Gladio events like the Boston Bombing, OKC Murrah building bombing, 9/11/01, San Bernadino, etc, etc? Now isn't the time to ease any kind of gun restrictions and nor would I ever acquiesce or obey any infringement of that right......are we clear on this?

AS of 1917, that argument became moot. I think most of us can already agree that the idea of the Organized Militia really has run it's course. There is no way in hell that any one state or even all the states put together can go up against the Federal Military with any hopes of winning if the US Military gets serious about it. You will say that if your Guards are called up, they won't fire on their neighbors. You would be right. So the US Military ships them to another part of the country and ships in Military from other areas what won't have that compunctions. That shuffles is as old as Despots.

The only part of the 2nd amendment that may still be viable (although it's up to interpretation) is last 4 words. All the rest no longer has any meaning.

And there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes ‘the militia’ to take up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

There’s nothing as to the ‘criteria of tyranny’; no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’ allowing the rights enshrined in the First Amendment to be discarded and replaced with armed rebellion.

What’s moot is the argument as to what the Second Amendment means, as the Heller Court has already given us that meaning: the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess handguns pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to government regulation and restrictions.

The Second Amendment affords citizens the means by which to defend themselves from criminal attack and lawlessness, not defend against a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The taking up of arms against a tyrannical governmental entity (and in this case is a corporation) in defense of the organic constitution and Bill of Rights is not only our duty but a responsibility. Those rights are not unalienable nor are they up for negotiation and when they are infringed upon, the 2nd amendment is that last line of defense. BTW, we don't have "laws" but rather acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what is called "public policy" because corporations cannot pass "laws" under the UCC of which all have been under. 50.00001 percent do not have the right to tell the other 49.99999 percent that any of their God given liberties must be forfeited because the majority says so......at least not without a fight. So, GTFO with your weak ass shit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes ‘the militia’ to take up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

Agreed, with some exceptions.

There’s nothing as to the ‘criteria of tyranny’; no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’ allowing the rights enshrined in the First Amendment to be discarded and replaced with armed rebellion.

Correct. It happens when enough people have had enough.

What’s moot is the argument as to what the Second Amendment means, as the Heller Court has already given us that meaning: the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess handguns pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service.

Heller also puts to rest the dishonest argument that the right is held collectively, rather than individually.

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’ – it is subject to government regulation and restrictions.

No according to the plain language of the amendment. If you don't like it, amend it.

I doubt anyone would put up too much resistance to amending the Constitution to carve out exceptions for nukes and chemical/bio weapons, among other things.

We can't just decide that the Constitution doesn't mean what it plainly says. That's how we lose it, along with any protections therein.

The Second Amendment affords citizens the means by which to defend themselves from criminal attack and lawlessness, not defend against a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Is there any objective perception of tyranny? When a government stops being of, by, and for the people, humans have an absolute right to throw off that government. People existed before government. Government is intended to serve the people. It's getting dangerously close to serving itself, rather than the people. You can pretend that is not tyranny, if you choose.

 

[JoeB131]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate has gone down 49%

No, it hasn't.

It went down in the 1990's thanks to Bill Clinton's crime reform bill and because after we made abortion legal, we had less malcontents making it past the medical waste container. (20 years after Roe v. Wade, crime went down... what a surprise. Not.)

But homicide kind of levelled off after 2000 and has been going up.

And still OBSCENELY high compared to other industrialized countries.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate has gone down 49%

No, it hasn't.

It went down in the 1990's thanks to Bill Clinton's crime reform bill and because after we made abortion legal, we had less malcontents making it past the medical waste container. (20 years after Roe v. Wade, crime went down... what a surprise. Not.)

But homicide kind of levelled off after 2000 and has been going up.

And still OBSCENELY high compared to other industrialized countries.

First off, Row/ Wade was passed in the early 70's, and even before that decision, several states had legal abortion. What you're looking at is the fact of more people owning guns and more states adopting a CCW program with laws that protect the shooter. So gun and violent crime went on a decline. The uptick happened because of the Ferguson Effect where police quit being proactive to combat crime. Now in many black areas, the cops only go out when called.

 

[Pilot1]

Obama, Holder ,and the Loretta Lynch environment of anti police lawlessness created any uptick in violence we saw.

 

[JoeB131]

First off, Row/ Wade was passed in the early 70's, and even before that decision, several states had legal abortion.

Actually, it wasn't just Roe, it was the advent of birth control in the late 1960's that reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies. And in the 1990's the crime rate went down, and we were all better off for it because unwanted kids didn't grow up to be criminals.

See how that works? Well, no, you are one of these folks who believes in fetus rights, but then shoot the little bastard after the umbilical chord is cut.

51st Trimester abortion!