Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Bumberclyde]

Meth, they still sell the ingrediants, because its household cleaners. We going to ban those because some retards want to loose their teeth? What stupidity

It's the cold medication that they need to make meth. Now you know.

 

[Bumberclyde]

so we can restrict trade and commerce?

They can restrict and control interstate trade of ammo, but they can't control intrastate commerce. So, everyone can make their own bullets.

well they can control it with unconstitutional laws.

Everyone should have to make their own bullets. Most Merruccans are way too stupid to do that.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Bumberclyde:

IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.

But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

 

[Spoonman]

1. That's not how you spell misspell.
2. People kill people, with guns. It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.

yea, but cars, and hammers and blunt objects and prescription medications and acts of god also kill people. your argument is worn. all kinds of stuff approved by the FDA even kills people. .0000305 guns in america kill anyone. the percent is so small only a pea brain with an agenda would even be worrying about it.

Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains. Got it.

blame societies failures to deal with an adam lanza. timothy mcviegh didn't need a gun to kill 8.5 times as many

 

[Spoonman]

They can restrict and control interstate trade of ammo, but they can't control intrastate commerce. So, everyone can make their own bullets.

well they can control it with unconstitutional laws.

Everyone should have to make their own bullets. Most Merruccans are way too stupid to do that.

nothing to it. even making gun powder is easy

 

[Spoonman]

No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control. To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.

Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.

Nope. But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either. And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.

rights were never intended to have limitations. the only reason they do is because pea brain liberals have allowed it to happen.

 

[kaz]

Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.

Nope. But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either. And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.

rights were never intended to have limitations. the only reason they do is because pea brain liberals have allowed it to happen.

I would say the "limit" of a right is when people start using it to infringe on other people's rights. Like the classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That does require though that others rights are actually infringed.

 

[kaz]

Bumberclyde:

IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.

But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

Well, it doesn't say firing pins, well, it doesn't say triggers...

Ammo are part of arms and not selling ammo infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers weren't word parsers. Obviously nobody said or meant that.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Bumberclyde:

IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.

But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

Well, it doesn't say firing pins, well, it doesn't say triggers...

Ammo are part of arms and not selling ammo infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers weren't word parsers. Obviously nobody said or meant that.

Back then most people melted their own musket balls. Now you know.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Bumberclyde:

IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.

But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?

You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Just MHO

 

[Bumberclyde]

Bumberclyde:

IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.

But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?

You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Just MHO

The FFs gave a right to have arms because back then people couldn't make them themselves. But bullets yes, everyone was melting metal into musket balls.

 

[kaz]

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

Well, it doesn't say firing pins, well, it doesn't say triggers...

Ammo are part of arms and not selling ammo infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers weren't word parsers. Obviously nobody said or meant that.

Back then most people melted their own musket balls. Now you know.

Now I know what?

 

[nodoginnafight]

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?

You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Just MHO

The FFs gave a right to have arms because back then people couldn't make them themselves. But bullets yes, everyone was melting metal into musket balls.

Yeah, ok. Hang your hat on that argument if you want.

Lemme know how that works out for you.

 

[Spoonman]

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?

You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Just MHO

The FFs gave a right to have arms because back then people couldn't make them themselves. But bullets yes, everyone was melting metal into musket balls.

ok, chalks you up to one of the totally clueless

 

[Spoonman]

Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains. Got it.

Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?

Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.

No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control. To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.

don't want a gun, don't own one. but don't think you are going to infringe on our rights

 

[Spoonman]

Bumberclyde:

IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.

But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

yea, it says you have the right to vote but it doesn't say you have the right to enter a polling facility. get real

 

[hunarcy]

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

Well, it doesn't say firing pins, well, it doesn't say triggers...

Ammo are part of arms and not selling ammo infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers weren't word parsers. Obviously nobody said or meant that.

Back then most people melted their own musket balls. Now you know.

My gosh, you're a pedantic little troll.

 

[kaz]

Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?

Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.

No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control. To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.

don't want a gun, don't own one. but don't think you are going to infringe on our rights

Yes, we have the right to have babies ... I mean guns ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs]The 'Right' to Have Babies - Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mojo2]

It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.

It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?

You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Just MHO

The FFs gave a right to have arms because back then people couldn't make them themselves. But bullets yes, everyone was melting metal into musket balls.

Just for the record:

The Founding Fathers did not GIVE us anything except emancipation from Great Britain, a very good idea for governing ourselves and the formula to maintain our freedom they won.

The rights in the Bill of Rights are those they recognized as God given birthrights they declared would be defended by law.

But of these "gifts" from our Founding Fathers, today's Liberals want to emulate GB's disastrous immigration policies, Liberals have given their whole hearted support to a POTUS who wants to fundamentally change the very good idea for governing ourselves and today's Liberals want to do away with the Second Amendment, which guarantees the viability of all the other rights in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Mojo2]

Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains. Got it.

Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?

Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.

No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control. To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.

Your logic and sense of reason is either on vacation or non-existent.

You are either making a perfunctory and symbolic (maybe cynical) protest for the sake of those families' sentiments or you are actually, incredibly, suggesting the concern and sympathy we may feel for those few thousands are worth the rest of us losing our freedom.

The 2nd Amendment was created with ONE REASON in mind.

And your post shows you don't know what that reason is.

I'll wait for you to Google it.

NOW do you have anything to say?