Guns - a list

[Crackerjack]

Wife tries to shoot husband over porn, police say

A lesson to all those gun huggers who have other fantasy's too.

She probably never would have stabbed him if no gun were around.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They surely knew becaus the majority of the authors were members of the continental congress that not only viewed the rapid fire weapon presented but also made the request to the modification of the existing technology. They knew what they wanted and they clearly knew where they saw the future of weapons technology. in fact, they specifially asked for it to be developed. their vision was on the future.

Those weapons were weapons of war, were they not? Militias existed and armory's were established and under the control/authority of officers such as John Marshall, later the Chief Justice of the United States. While canon and other weapons of war existed at the time of the writing of the Constitutional Convention I doubt very much your inference that anyone of the signers expected a Virginia Farmer to own one for for his protection.

No, that is you point of view. The bill of rights does not put any restrictions on what type of weapons or technology can be owned. by your logic, the first amendment does not put any limits or restrictions of freedom of speech. it does not mention cell phones, the internet, emails. these must not be protected by the first amendment, because they were not mention specifically, right?

First of all automatic firearms are restricted by law; as our other weapons of war such as a Fragmentation Grenade. My freedom of speech/expression is likewise restricted by laws of slander, libel and threats and my right to carry a legal firearm on a plane, into a federal building or on a train is also restricted.

and all of those things you listed are restrictions that have been added in fairly recent years. and i agree with you, they are wrong too. just like any additional bans they try to pass through.

now libel and slander indicate that the spoken or written word were false. and spreading falsehoods is not freedom of speech.

I don't think these restriction are wrong; why would anyone choose to allow a person to carry a firearm or a grenade on a passenger plane?

You've defined (or used staree decisis) to determine the First Amendment does not protect falsehoods, suggesting I suppose, that modern interpretations of the intent of the framers - a position in direct contradiction to Scalia and others who support original intent. Which leaves me to conclude you support the decision to restrict the ownership, possession, custody and control of firearms by some classes of people (felons, wife beaters, robbers, paranoid schizophrenics) and restrictions banning weapons of war from civilians.

Your turn.

 

[SFC Ollie]

A cannon is even easier to build than a gun. I even know someone who built and has one....And yes he has fired it at least a dozen times that i know of.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

A cannon is even easier to build than a gun. I even know someone who built and has one....And yes he has fired it at least a dozen times that i know of.....

And said canon can be concealed, carried by one crazed killer into an elementry school or other pubic place?

 

[jtpr312]

Wife tries to shoot husband over porn, police say

A lesson to all those gun huggers who have other fantasy's too.

She probably never would have stabbed him if no gun were around.

Guess you're a little too young to remember lorena bobbit huh? God the ignorance of the American left would be funny if they're weren't so many of you brain dead morons around.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I wonder what the open carry laws would say?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wife tries to shoot husband over porn, police say

A lesson to all those gun huggers who have other fantasy's too.

She probably never would have stabbed him if no gun were around.

Guess you're a little too young to remember lorena bobbit huh? God the ignorance of the American left would be funny if they're weren't so many of you brain dead morons around.

Well aren't you an asshole. I recall, she cut off her husband's Crackerjack.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wonder what the open carry laws would say?

Laws "say"? You really are strange. I suppose you might want to buy or build a canon and tow it around town. Let us know how the locals respond.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Actually he could probably carry it...Must be about 3 ft long and weighs maybe 80 pounds....shell is a steel ball about 3" in diameter. Though I think he has made the balls out of pretty cheap stuff....And easier to melt than steel... I'll have to ask him next time i see him....

 

[Crackerjack]

Wife tries to shoot husband over porn, police say

A lesson to all those gun huggers who have other fantasy's too.

She probably never would have stabbed him if no gun were around.

Guess you're a little too young to remember lorena bobbit huh? God the ignorance of the American left would be funny if they're weren't so many of you brain dead morons around.

I was being sarcastic. Pull your head out of your Wry Catcher.

 

[Wry Catcher]

She probably never would have stabbed him if no gun were around.

Guess you're a little too young to remember lorena bobbit huh? God the ignorance of the American left would be funny if they're weren't so many of you brain dead morons around.

I was being sarcastic. Pull your head out of your Wry Catcher.

Nope, you were not:

Insults and sarcasm are very closely related, but there is a difference. They both can make people laugh at what is written. The difference is that an insult is done with the intent to ridicule; sarcasm is really done to be funny.

Yours was an insult, a personal attack; mine was sarcasm.

 

[Spoonman]

First of all automatic firearms are restricted by law; as our other weapons of war such as a Fragmentation Grenade. My freedom of speech/expression is likewise restricted by laws of slander, libel and threats and my right to carry a legal firearm on a plane, into a federal building or on a train is also restricted.

and all of those things you listed are restrictions that have been added in fairly recent years. and i agree with you, they are wrong too. just like any additional bans they try to pass through.

now libel and slander indicate that the spoken or written word were false. and spreading falsehoods is not freedom of speech.

I don't think these restriction are wrong; why would anyone choose to allow a person to carry a firearm or a grenade on a passenger plane?

You've defined (or used staree decisis) to determine the First Amendment does not protect falsehoods, suggesting I suppose, that modern interpretations of the intent of the framers - a position in direct contradiction to Scalia and others who support original intent. Which leaves me to conclude you support the decision to restrict the ownership, possession, custody and control of firearms by some classes of people (felons, wife beaters, robbers, paranoid schizophrenics) and restrictions banning weapons of war from civilians.

Your turn.

lmao, if you are arguing the authors of the constitution were advocating libel and slander you really are off your rocker.

 

[Wry Catcher]

and all of those things you listed are restrictions that have been added in fairly recent years. and i agree with you, they are wrong too. just like any additional bans they try to pass through.

now libel and slander indicate that the spoken or written word were false. and spreading falsehoods is not freedom of speech.

I don't think these restriction are wrong; why would anyone choose to allow a person to carry a firearm or a grenade on a passenger plane?

You've defined (or used staree decisis) to determine the First Amendment does not protect falsehoods, suggesting I suppose, that modern interpretations of the intent of the framers - a position in direct contradiction to Scalia and others who support original intent. Which leaves me to conclude you support the decision to restrict the ownership, possession, custody and control of firearms by some classes of people (felons, wife beaters, robbers, paranoid schizophrenics) and restrictions banning weapons of war from civilians.

Your turn.

lmao, if you are arguing the authors of the constitution were advocating libel and slander you really are off your rocker.

Thanks for sharing, when you grow up come back.

 

[Crackerjack]

And said canon can be concealed, carried by one crazed killer into an elementry school or other pubic place?

Nope, you were not:

Insults and sarcasm are very closely related, but there is a difference. They both can make people laugh at what is written. The difference is that an insult is done with the intent to reticule; sarcasm is really done to be funny.

Yours was an insult, a personal attack; mine was sarcasm.

Believe me, I would never intend to reticule you.

Seriously, was your diploma written in crayon, or did you go to a good school where they use magic markers?

 

[Spoonman]

I don't think these restriction are wrong; why would anyone choose to allow a person to carry a firearm or a grenade on a passenger plane?

You've defined (or used staree decisis) to determine the First Amendment does not protect falsehoods, suggesting I suppose, that modern interpretations of the intent of the framers - a position in direct contradiction to Scalia and others who support original intent. Which leaves me to conclude you support the decision to restrict the ownership, possession, custody and control of firearms by some classes of people (felons, wife beaters, robbers, paranoid schizophrenics) and restrictions banning weapons of war from civilians.

Your turn.

lmao, if you are arguing the authors of the constitution were advocating libel and slander you really are off your rocker.

Thanks for sharing, when you grow up come back.

hey i haven't heard that one since the 3rd grade

 

[saveliberty]

I wonder what the open carry laws would say?

Laws "say"? You really are strange. I suppose you might want to buy or build a canon and tow it around town. Let us know how the locals respond.

Pumpkin canons draw large crowds and fire projectiles great distances.

 

[Crackerjack]

I wonder what the open carry laws would say?

Laws "say"? You really are strange. I suppose you might want to buy or build a canon and tow it around town. Let us know how the locals respond.

Pumpkin canons draw large crowds and fire projectiles great distances.

1can·on noun \ˈka-nən\

Definition of CANON

1
a : a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council
b : a provision of canon law
2
[Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine
3
[Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard]
a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b : the authentic works of a writer
c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>
4
a : an accepted principle or rule
b : a criterion or standard of judgment
c : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms
5
[Late Greek kan&#333;n, from Greek, model] : a contrapuntal musical composition in which each successively entering voice presents the initial theme usually transformed in a strictly consistent way

 

[Spoonman]

I don't think these restriction are wrong; why would anyone choose to allow a person to carry a firearm or a grenade on a passenger plane?

You've defined (or used staree decisis) to determine the First Amendment does not protect falsehoods, suggesting I suppose, that modern interpretations of the intent of the framers - a position in direct contradiction to Scalia and others who support original intent. Which leaves me to conclude you support the decision to restrict the ownership, possession, custody and control of firearms by some classes of people (felons, wife beaters, robbers, paranoid schizophrenics) and restrictions banning weapons of war from civilians.

Your turn.

lmao, if you are arguing the authors of the constitution were advocating libel and slander you really are off your rocker.

Thanks for sharing, when you grow up come back.

Hey, since you are all hot for banning assault rifles, can you tell me how many people were killed with rifles last year? you seem to think they are such a problem, you must have a general idea.

 

[Wry Catcher]

lmao, if you are arguing the authors of the constitution were advocating libel and slander you really are off your rocker.

Thanks for sharing, when you grow up come back.

Hey, since you are all hot for banning assault rifles, can you tell me how many people were killed with rifles last year? you seem to think they are such a problem, you must have a general idea.

I hadn't been counting but will keep posting those killed with guns for a while. It simply seems to me to be the correct thing to do; a counterpoint to those who cherish their guns more than human beings.

I do know 20 six and seven your olds were killed with a AR 15 a week ago today; that's seems to me the important number(s) - why don't you?

BTW, when you choose to cherry pick a sentence from a full post, and create a straw man, you've lost credibility.

 

[Crackerjack]

Thanks for sharing, when you grow up come back.

Hey, since you are all hot for banning assault rifles, can you tell me how many people were killed with rifles last year? you seem to think they are such a problem, you must have a general idea.

I hadn't been counting but will keep posting those killed with guns for a while. It simply seems to me to be the correct thing to do; a counterpoint to those who cherish their guns more than human beings.

I do know 20 six and seven your olds were killed with a AR 15 a week ago today; that's seems to me the important number(s) - why don't you?

BTW, when you choose to cherry pick a sentence from a full post, and create a straw man, you've lost credibility.

Speaking of straw men, who here " cherish[es] their guns more than human beings"?