How many deaths are necessary before something should be banned?

[progressive hunter]

Don’t our children deserve to go to school and not worry a nuts gonna shot them?

so your solution is to do nothing to help them when the bad guy that doesnt care about laws comes to harm them,,

you must be so proud,,

 

[Kruska]

It doesn't matter what it means now.

I wouldn't be so sure

What matters is what it meant THEN.

An armed and trained MILITIA - therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms (those belonging to a Militia or liable for being called up to serve in a Militia).
You can be dead sure that in those days - a women would and could not have been an official Militia member. Furthermore to hunt wildlife and to kill Injuins at the "frontier", and certainly not to walk around with arms on a main street in e.g. Philadelphia in 1782, to rob shops, to shoot and kill other civilians, or some 12 year old babysitter "accidentally" discharging a loaded Musket onto some baby.

The Founders had just fought a revolution, and didn't trust government.

Again - that's YOUR personal opinion/interpretation. "They" just got an own "democratic" constitution and were surrounded AT THE TIME by MONARCHIES - e.g. Spain, France and the UK, who posed a threat to any country, especially towards a new and the only "democratic" country in that hemisphere.
There is absolutely no indication nor logic towards: "they" were supposed to guard themselves from their own democratic government.

You are plainly an idiot because that is EXACTLY what happened in Rumania when the Cauczesku's were brought down.

The "idiot" would be you, for bringing in a ludicrous and false comparison between the USA and a chaos ridden, and lawless (at the time) Romania.
Furthermore the "civilians" did NOT bring down the Ceausescu regime - they were mowed down by the Armed Forces on December 17th 1989 - however on December 22nd the Romanian Armed Forces, defected to the demonstrators. The Army then arrested Ceausescu and his wife, and executed them on December 25th. IT was the ARMY that took control, and not some ragtag civilians with arms.

And, more to the point, the American gun owning public outnumbers all of the armies of the world combined, many times over.

As I had stated before - to envision some ragtag and disorganized civilians (there is NO organized State Militia in the USA) engaging with a modern Army (Aircraft, tanks, ships, artillery, etc. etc.) is simply ludicrous - look at those Hamas jerks with their AK47's - fighting the IAF.

Try doing some research. I know you are capable, but on this subject you are ignorant as hell.

Just because you love and still draw inspiration from a ludicrous movie like "Red Dawn" - doesn't indicate that YOU did any research on the subject. You can twist this as much as you want to - Nowhere in the 2nd A - does it mention "firearms" nor ammo,

Furthermore, the constitution can be changed - till then it can and is constantly amended.

As I had stated numerous times - I am NOT for a ban towards firearms - but a gun owner license and test (to ensure the mental health and the capability towards a responsible handling of firearms) needs to be introduced. And criminals involved in shootings, as well as civilians involved in "accidental" shootings need to be severely punished.

Now WHY would you have a problem with that?

 

[progressive hunter]

I wouldn't be so sure

An armed and trained MILITIA - therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms (those belonging to a Militia or liable for being called up to serve in a Militia).
You can be dead sure that in those days - a women would and could not have been an official Militia member. Furthermore to hunt wildlife and to kill Injuins at the "frontier", and certainly not to walk around with arms on a main street in e.g. Philadelphia in 1782, to rob shops, to shoot and kill other civilians, or some 12 year old babysitter "accidentally" discharging a loaded Musket onto some baby.



Again - that's YOUR personal opinion/interpretation. "They" just got an own "democratic" constitution and were surrounded AT THE TIME by MONARCHIES - e.g. Spain, France and the UK, who posed a threat to any country, especially towards a new and the only "democratic" country in that hemisphere.
There is absolutely no indication nor logic towards: "they" were supposed to guard themselves from their own democratic government.

The "idiot" would be you, for bringing in a ludicrous and false comparison between the USA and a chaos ridden, and lawless (at the time) Romania.
Furthermore the "civilians" did NOT bring down the Ceausescu regime - they were mowed down by the Armed Forces on December 17th 1989 - however on December 22nd the Romanian Armed Forces, defected to the demonstrators. The Army then arrested Ceausescu and his wife, and executed them on December 25th. IT was the ARMY that took control, and not some ragtag civilians with arms.

As I had stated before - to envision some ragtag and disorganized civilians (there is NO organized State Militia in the USA) engaging with a modern Army (Aircraft, tanks, ships, artillery, etc. etc.) is simply ludicrous - look at those Hamas jerks with their AK47's - fighting the IAF.

Just because you love and still draw inspiration from a ludicrous movie like "Red Dawn" - doesn't indicate that YOU did any research on the subject. You can twist this as much as you want to - Nowhere in the 2nd A - does it mention "firearms" nor ammo,

Furthermore, the constitution can be changed - till then it can and is constantly amended.

As I had stated numerous times - I am NOT for a ban towards firearms - but a gun owner license and test (to ensure the mental health and the capability towards a responsible handling of firearms) needs to be introduced. And criminals involved in shootings, as well as civilians involved in "accidental" shootings need to be severely punished.

Now WHY would you have a problem with that?

thats the best case of "I'm just going to make something up and expect people to believe it",, that I have ever seen,,

 

[Kruska]

NO, it would not criminals do not buy their firearms legally so no law will prevent them from buying illegal firearms, all it does is put roadblocks to normal citizens to get firearms.

First of all - criminals can and do buy guns legally (the vast majority) - since the existing laws aren't sufficient and criminals know how to bypass these ineffective laws.
Secondly, since Firearms in the USA are LEGAL - how can one buy/purchase an "illegal" firearm??
As such define "illegal firearm" - and those random criminals in vast majority do not posses or use "auto-weapons" - but "legal" firearms to e.g. rob a shop or to do some stick up.

Organized gang criminals - use e.g. auto-weapons for their ritual carnage's against other gangs - thus in the USA they should be supplied with free ammo and be paid out bonuses for murdering off other gang members - since both government and police are obviously incapable of disarming or arresting those cretins.

Thus laws regarding gangs and the police need to be enforced - and not some wannabe Rambo like you, declaring that he is fully armed to the teeth, to take on organized gangs - simply laughable and plain ridiculous.

 

[Kruska]

And Hunter Biden breaks those laws and gets a free pass. Laws for thee but not for me.

Thanks for confirming, that there are obvious faults in regards to laws and enforcing laws, pertaining to firearms - thanks.

 

[Kruska]

thats the best case of "I'm just going to make something up and expect people to believe it",, that I have ever seen,,

Right - the only ones constantly making up things are "gun retards" - see 2nd A - where does it state FIREARMS or AMMO??
Try to answer the question without deflecting - which you won't be able to do anyway.

 

[progressive hunter]

Right - the only ones constantly making up things are "gun retards" - see 2nd A - where does it state FIREARMS or AMMO??
Try to answer the question without deflecting - which you won't be able to do anyway.

arms includes anything having to do with whatever arm you decide to take up,,
if you choose a bow that also includes the arrows,,
for a slingshot it includes the rock,
do you seee the pattern??


if its only for militia members then why does it say "THE PEOPLE" and not militia members??

 

[AZrailwhale]

Are you saying any and all drug laws are pointless?

Are you saying some common sense drug laws wouldn’t work so don’t even try?

Actually I think laws prohibiting the use of drugs by adults are foolish. I also think drug use is insane. But like suicide and drinking, drug usage is a personal choice.

 

[Kruska]

We already have laws so people won't "dare" to buy drugs, smuggle illegal aliens, smuggle drugs, rob stores, carjack people and kill other people. It's odd, those laws don't deter criminals from committing those actions on an hourly basis. About the only way even those laws would stop criminals is summary execution by the police immediately upon apprehension. Is that what you want?

I'm in favor of draconian penalties for straw purchasers and criminal gun possession and use. Starting with ten years in prison at hard labor for a first offense of straw purchasing, simple possession of a weapon by a felon and knowingly assisting a felon in a crime. Twenty years in prison for using a weapon of any sort in a crime and either the death penalty or life in prison without parole for killing someone while in the commission of a crime while armed. Those would be effective penalties. They wouldn't deter criminals from committing crimes because it's been proven that nothing will deter a criminal from being a criminal. BUT they will remove criminals from society so they cannot continue to commit crimes.

So it's about "effectively enforcing" existing laws - and to add additional laws - regulations.

You need to define "criminal" - an organized gang member or some wacko robbing a gas station a liqueur store, or trying to rob someones wallet, breaking into other peoples homes, stealing cars or someones Mobile, or a Trump found liable for battery?

One can actually prevent people from becoming criminals - its' called education and thus forms the ultimate basis for someone getting a "normal" professional work or job.
And there is a huge, factual difference between a respective criminal, that only possesses a knife or some toy-gun, to a respective criminal holding a "real" gun, and therefore the actions he can and might conduct.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Are you kidding? I don’t know where to get cocaine. If I did it might destroy me. Thank god there’s a war on that drug.

Do you want to buy a gun? At least coke heads are only hurting themselves.

Why would cocaine destroy you? Are you too weak and stupid to not indulge in something harmful? Is that why you want government to protect you like a child?

 

[AZrailwhale]

George Bush should have armed every Afghanistan woman and proved to us the only way to stop bad guys with guns is to arm more good guys. Or gals.

That wouldn’t have worked because Muslim women believe they are second class citizens and wouldn’t protect themselves.

 

[AZrailwhale]

So it's about "effectively enforcing" existing laws - and to add additional laws - regulations.

You need to define "criminal" - an organized gang member or some wacko robbing a gas station a liqueur store, or trying to rob someones wallet, breaking into other peoples homes, stealing cars or someones Mobile, or a Trump found liable for battery?

One can actually prevent people from becoming criminals - its' called education and thus forms the ultimate basis for someone getting a "normal" professional work or job.
And there is a huge, factual difference between a respective criminal, that only possesses a knife or some toy-gun, to a respective criminal holding a "real" gun, and therefore the actions he can and might conduct.

No, criminals are already defined. They are called felons. Education won’t stop criminals from committing crimes. Criminals already think they are smarter than the rest of us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don’t our children deserve to go to school and not worry a nuts gonna shot them?

Children have always been under the threat of being shot at school; this will never change.

 

[Concerned American]

where does it state FIREARMS or AMMO??

Where does it put a limitation on "ARMS"

 

[westwall]

I wouldn't be so sure

An armed and trained MILITIA - therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms (those belonging to a Militia or liable for being called up to serve in a Militia).
You can be dead sure that in those days - a women would and could not have been an official Militia member. Furthermore to hunt wildlife and to kill Injuins at the "frontier", and certainly not to walk around with arms on a main street in e.g. Philadelphia in 1782, to rob shops, to shoot and kill other civilians, or some 12 year old babysitter "accidentally" discharging a loaded Musket onto some baby.



Again - that's YOUR personal opinion/interpretation. "They" just got an own "democratic" constitution and were surrounded AT THE TIME by MONARCHIES - e.g. Spain, France and the UK, who posed a threat to any country, especially towards a new and the only "democratic" country in that hemisphere.
There is absolutely no indication nor logic towards: "they" were supposed to guard themselves from their own democratic government.

The "idiot" would be you, for bringing in a ludicrous and false comparison between the USA and a chaos ridden, and lawless (at the time) Romania.
Furthermore the "civilians" did NOT bring down the Ceausescu regime - they were mowed down by the Armed Forces on December 17th 1989 - however on December 22nd the Romanian Armed Forces, defected to the demonstrators. The Army then arrested Ceausescu and his wife, and executed them on December 25th. IT was the ARMY that took control, and not some ragtag civilians with arms.

As I had stated before - to envision some ragtag and disorganized civilians (there is NO organized State Militia in the USA) engaging with a modern Army (Aircraft, tanks, ships, artillery, etc. etc.) is simply ludicrous - look at those Hamas jerks with their AK47's - fighting the IAF.

Just because you love and still draw inspiration from a ludicrous movie like "Red Dawn" - doesn't indicate that YOU did any research on the subject. You can twist this as much as you want to - Nowhere in the 2nd A - does it mention "firearms" nor ammo,

Furthermore, the constitution can be changed - till then it can and is constantly amended.

As I had stated numerous times - I am NOT for a ban towards firearms - but a gun owner license and test (to ensure the mental health and the capability towards a responsible handling of firearms) needs to be introduced. And criminals involved in shootings, as well as civilians involved in "accidental" shootings need to be severely punished.

Now WHY would you have a problem with that?

Everything I attributed to the Founders can be easily found by reading THEIR published letters.

That and The Federalist Papers.

Read those then get back to the class.

 

[Kruska]

arms includes anything having to do with whatever arm you decide to take up,,

Correct

if you choose a bow that also includes the arrows,,

No

for a slingshot it includes the rock

No

do you seee the pattern??

No

if its only for militia members then why does it say "THE PEOPLE" and not militia members??

Simply - because at the time "the people" constituted the militia. And "the people" at the time, did NOT include females in a militia. As such no female today would have a "right" to bear arms according to the 2nd A.

So you want to bring in today's "equality" aka "equal" rights for males and females? fine with me - but then the 2nd A would need to be changed aka amended. And if it can be amended in that respect it can be amended in any other respect as well.

It says and states solely; - to bear arms - there is NOTHING stated in regards to ammo, or a powder horn. An unloaded Musket is an arm - Nowhere is it stated anywhere, that an unloaded Musket wouldn't be an arm.

Arm - means nothing else but weapon. And an AR-15 is a WEAPON - totally independent of chambering a single cartridge, holding a 30 round magazine or simply being unloaded and hanging on your wall.

And it's only called Bow & Arrow if an arrow is included - since a bow is a bow and an arrow is an arrow. Just like Musket and a Musket ball and a powder horn.
A Bow can be a weapon since I can knock it around your head, an arrow is also a weapon since I can stick it into your bud without a bow.

The only thing the 2nd A states - that one can bear a weapon - nothing more nothing less. The 2nd A also states nowhere that you are legible to make use of a weapon, only to "bear" it, aka posses a weapon and carry it with you. And as long as one used a musket to simply shot wildlife, some stray dog and occasionally an Injuin - nobody bothered to "detail" aka amend the 2nd A.

As such "self-defense", "to protect my family" or play Charles Bronson, isn't anywhere part of the 2nd A.

Anything else is wishful thinking aka "personal" interpretations towards something that doesn't exist, since it isn't written down.

 

[progressive hunter]

Correct

No

No

No

Simply - because at the time "the people" constituted the militia. And "the people" at the time, did NOT include females in a militia. As such no female today would have a "right" to bear arms according to the 2nd A.

So you want to bring in today's "equality" aka "equal" rights for males and females? fine with me - but then the 2nd A would need to be changed aka amended. And if it can be amended in that respect it can be amended in any other respect as well.

It says and states solely; - to bear arms - there is NOTHING stated in regards to ammo, or a powder horn. An unloaded Musket is an arm - Nowhere is it stated anywhere, that an unloaded Musket wouldn't be an arm.

Arm - means nothing else but weapon. And an AR-15 is a WEAPON - totally independent of chambering a single cartridge, holding a 30 round magazine or simply being unloaded and hanging on your wall.

And it's only called Bow & Arrow if an arrow is included - since a bow is a bow and an arrow is an arrow. Just like Musket and a Musket ball and a powder horn.
A Bow can be a weapon since I can knock it around your head, an arrow is also a weapon since I can stick it into your bud without a bow.

The only thing the 2nd A states - that one can bear a weapon - nothing more nothing less. The 2nd A also states nowhere that you are legible to make use of a weapon, only to "bear" it, aka posses a weapon and carry it with you. And as long as one used a musket to simply shot wildlife, some stray dog and occasionally an Injuin - nobody bothered to "detail" aka amend the 2nd A.

As such "self-defense", "to protect my family" or play Charles Bronson, isn't anywhere part of the 2nd A.

Anything else is wishful thinking aka "personal" interpretations towards something that doesn't exist, since it isn't written down.

thanks for your opinion,, but I will stick woth the facts of the constitution that say the exact opposite,,

 

[2aguy]

First of all - criminals can and do buy guns legally (the vast majority) - since the existing laws aren't sufficient and criminals know how to bypass these ineffective laws.
Secondly, since Firearms in the USA are LEGAL - how can one buy/purchase an "illegal" firearm??
As such define "illegal firearm" - and those random criminals in vast majority do not posses or use "auto-weapons" - but "legal" firearms to e.g. rob a shop or to do some stick up.

Organized gang criminals - use e.g. auto-weapons for their ritual carnage's against other gangs - thus in the USA they should be supplied with free ammo and be paid out bonuses for murdering off other gang members - since both government and police are obviously incapable of disarming or arresting those cretins.

Thus laws regarding gangs and the police need to be enforced - and not some wannabe Rambo like you, declaring that he is fully armed to the teeth, to take on organized gangs - simply laughable and plain ridiculous.

Criminals do not buy guns legally, they use straw buyers who buy the guns for them, which is illegal. Or they steal the guns.

The problem isn't that we can't arrest them, the problem is the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing them when we catch them...no matter how many gun offenses they have.

Gangs do not use automatic weapons, in particular, rifles.....

The police arrest them all the time, and then democrat judges and prosecutors plea bargain away the gun charge and they keep releasing them over and over again.

 

[Kruska]

Everything I attributed to the Founders can be easily found by reading THEIR published letters.

That and The Federalist Papers.

Read those then get back to the class.

Feel free to show me a published law by the Founders - that would state an armed citizenry is needed to defend themselves against the founding fathers, thus to uphold the constitution towards insurrectionists and internal factions trying to suppress their freedom.

 

[2aguy]

Correct

No

No

No

Simply - because at the time "the people" constituted the militia. And "the people" at the time, did NOT include females in a militia. As such no female today would have a "right" to bear arms according to the 2nd A.

So you want to bring in today's "equality" aka "equal" rights for males and females? fine with me - but then the 2nd A would need to be changed aka amended. And if it can be amended in that respect it can be amended in any other respect as well.

It says and states solely; - to bear arms - there is NOTHING stated in regards to ammo, or a powder horn. An unloaded Musket is an arm - Nowhere is it stated anywhere, that an unloaded Musket wouldn't be an arm.

Arm - means nothing else but weapon. And an AR-15 is a WEAPON - totally independent of chambering a single cartridge, holding a 30 round magazine or simply being unloaded and hanging on your wall.

And it's only called Bow & Arrow if an arrow is included - since a bow is a bow and an arrow is an arrow. Just like Musket and a Musket ball and a powder horn.
A Bow can be a weapon since I can knock it around your head, an arrow is also a weapon since I can stick it into your bud without a bow.

The only thing the 2nd A states - that one can bear a weapon - nothing more nothing less. The 2nd A also states nowhere that you are legible to make use of a weapon, only to "bear" it, aka posses a weapon and carry it with you. And as long as one used a musket to simply shot wildlife, some stray dog and occasionally an Injuin - nobody bothered to "detail" aka amend the 2nd A.

As such "self-defense", "to protect my family" or play Charles Bronson, isn't anywhere part of the 2nd A.

Anything else is wishful thinking aka "personal" interpretations towards something that doesn't exist, since it isn't written down.

Wow....and the first Amendment says nothing about ink, or computers, or paper.......you are so right.....so the government can simply ban ink, computers, paper.....and that is all good and Constitutional...

You idiot.