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

[Wry Catcher]

What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?

How will it work?

His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......

Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.

That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.

Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.

OK, let's play.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?

Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.

Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.

So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?

Just In Case Fallacy

And let's make speaking by an unlicensed Liberal a crime. We can then cut out their tongue and cut off their fingers.

Yes there are restrictions on free speech and should be restrictions on how guns are used as well.

Well DAMN! There are, and always have been. Murder is illegal. Armed robbery is illegal. It makes little difference whether you're stabbed with a steak knife or shot, once you're dead. It matters not one iota if you're robbed by a man with a gun or a sword. You've still lost your cash.
The right to keep and bear arms is every bit as sacred as the right to speak freely. It shall not be abridged, period.

But it is abridged, unless I can go down to the local gun shop and order my surface to air missile, my rights are being abridged. If "Arms' means something more than that available in the late 18th Century, then "Arms" to protect me from a tyrannical government today must included modern weapons of war.

Now I suspect this too will be ignored and in response will be more comments about cutting off hands. But that's what the Crazy Right Wings does, how many times do they claim Obama believes there are 57 states or make other childish comments when faced with a question which is too difficult for them to answer without exposing their hypocrisy.

18 alerts, none substantive and very few honest.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, let's play.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?

Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.

Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.

So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?

Just In Case Fallacy

You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.

Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.

Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
You're a piece of cocksucking shit. No wonder you live in Cali.

Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.

Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
Yes, you do.
You offer no new arguments. Hell, not even clever ones.
Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available. You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?

 

[Ernie S.]

"Arms" as defined by SCOTUS is weapons commonly carried by an individual soldier.
As it stands right now, that means any and all rifles and handguns up to and including machine guns made before 1986. Fully automatic weapons made before '86 are in fact legal to own with the appropriate transfer stamp with compliance to state laws. SAMs are not a personal weapon, but you're just grasping here.
I am actually considering the purchase of an M 1919 belt fed light machine gun. It will run me about 3K. Figure another $500 for 30.06 ammo and I can have a blast for about 10 minutes.

 

[2aguy]

So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade. What about addressing the question? "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"

Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling. On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence. That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.

Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.

Still no answer to the question: "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"

I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to. Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.

You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but. Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:

Non Sequitur

Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant. Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second. Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?

And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward. Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights? That's a non-sequitur? That's just stupid.

And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not. If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it. Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that. Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested. Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.

What you want is way beyond that. For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right. That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights? Or just that one?

Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control. Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun. You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.

All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate. Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.

The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?

Let's start with a question: Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?

What say you Kaz? Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

 

[2aguy]

What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?

How will it work?

His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......

Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.

That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.

Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.

OK, let's play.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?

Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.

Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.

So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?

Just In Case Fallacy

And let's make speaking by an unlicensed Liberal a crime. We can then cut out their tongue and cut off their fingers.

Yes there are restrictions on free speech and should be restrictions on how guns are used as well.

Well DAMN! There are, and always have been. Murder is illegal. Armed robbery is illegal. It makes little difference whether you're stabbed with a steak knife or shot, once you're dead. It matters not one iota if you're robbed by a man with a gun or a sword. You've still lost your cash.
The right to keep and bear arms is every bit as sacred as the right to speak freely. It shall not be abridged, period.

The right to keep and bear arms is every bit as sacred as the right to speak freely. It shall not be abridged, period.

In fact the right to keep and bear arms backstops the right to speak freely.......the ones with the guns make the rules for speech..........and in too many countries the ones with the guns don't let people speak freely......the left never gets that.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.

Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.

So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?

Just In Case Fallacy

You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.

Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.

Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
You're a piece of cocksucking shit. No wonder you live in Cali.

Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.

Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
Yes, you do.
You offer no new arguments. Hell, not even clever ones.
Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available. You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?

Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack. Can I be more clear?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling. On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence. That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.

Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.

Still no answer to the question: "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"

I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to. Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.

You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but. Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:

Non Sequitur

Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant. Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second. Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?

And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward. Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights? That's a non-sequitur? That's just stupid.

And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not. If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it. Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that. Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested. Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.

What you want is way beyond that. For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right. That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights? Or just that one?

Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control. Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun. You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.

All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate. Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.

The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?

Let's start with a question: Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?

What say you Kaz? Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

 

[The Rabbi]

You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.

Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.

Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
You're a piece of cocksucking shit. No wonder you live in Cali.

Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.

Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
Yes, you do.
You offer no new arguments. Hell, not even clever ones.
Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available. You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?

Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack. Can I be more clear?

You are clearly too stupid to debate me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.

Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
You're a piece of cocksucking shit. No wonder you live in Cali.

Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.

Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
Yes, you do.
You offer no new arguments. Hell, not even clever ones.
Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available. You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?

Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack. Can I be more clear?

You are clearly too stupid to debate me.

Debate you? LOL, you've never posted anything but ad hominems and idiot-grams. Sometimes I wonder if you come on line in a dress and pumps and use the log on name of Stephanie.

 

[Ernie S.]

Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.

Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
You're a piece of cocksucking shit. No wonder you live in Cali.

Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.

Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
Yes, you do.
You offer no new arguments. Hell, not even clever ones.
Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available. You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?

Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack. Can I be more clear?

You are clearly too stupid to debate me.

And too drunk.

 

[Ernie S.]

Still no answer to the question: "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"

I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to. Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.

You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but. Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:

Non Sequitur

Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant. Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second. Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?

And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward. Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights? That's a non-sequitur? That's just stupid.

And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not. If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it. Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that. Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested. Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.

What you want is way beyond that. For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right. That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights? Or just that one?

Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control. Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun. You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.

All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate. Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.

The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?

Let's start with a question: Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?

What say you Kaz? Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

You do realize, doncha, that if the government ordered the military to bomb its citizens, the first target would be 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC?

 

[2aguy]

Still no answer to the question: "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"

I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to. Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.

You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but. Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:

Non Sequitur

Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant. Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second. Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?

And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward. Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights? That's a non-sequitur? That's just stupid.

And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not. If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it. Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that. Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested. Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.

What you want is way beyond that. For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right. That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights? Or just that one?

Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control. Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun. You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.

All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate. Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.

The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?

Let's start with a question: Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?

What say you Kaz? Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....

The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....

You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what? The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again? Real f*****g geniuses......

 

[Brain357]

You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but. Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:

Non Sequitur

Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant. Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second. Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?

And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward. Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights? That's a non-sequitur? That's just stupid.

And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not. If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it. Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that. Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested. Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.

What you want is way beyond that. For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right. That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights? Or just that one?

Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control. Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun. You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.

All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate. Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.

The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?

Let's start with a question: Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?

What say you Kaz? Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....

The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....

You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what? The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again? Real f*****g geniuses......

There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps. First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights. Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past. Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones... Not going to happen.

 

[2aguy]

Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant. Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second. Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?

And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward. Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights? That's a non-sequitur? That's just stupid.

And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not. If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it. Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that. Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested. Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.

What you want is way beyond that. For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right. That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights? Or just that one?

Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control. Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun. You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.

All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate. Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.

The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?

Let's start with a question: Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?

What say you Kaz? Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....

The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....

You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what? The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again? Real f*****g geniuses......

There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps. First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights. Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past. Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones... Not going to happen.

And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......

 

[Brain357]

Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control. Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun. You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.

All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate. Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.

The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?

Let's start with a question: Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?

What say you Kaz? Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....

The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....

You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what? The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again? Real f*****g geniuses......

There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps. First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights. Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past. Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones... Not going to happen.

And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......

Well I don't think it will hurt to have them. But I still don't think it will happen at all. There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.

 

[2aguy]

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....

The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....

You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what? The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again? Real f*****g geniuses......

There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps. First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights. Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past. Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones... Not going to happen.

And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......

Well I don't think it will hurt to have them. But I still don't think it will happen at all. There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.

And a lot more without them that aren't........

 

[Brain357]

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....

The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....

You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what? The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again? Real f*****g geniuses......

There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps. First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights. Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past. Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones... Not going to happen.

And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......

Well I don't think it will hurt to have them. But I still don't think it will happen at all. There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.

And a lot more without them that aren't........

But I don't think you can name any that have had real voting rights or any kind of stable government.

 

[2aguy]

And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....

The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....

You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what? The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again? Real f*****g geniuses......

There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps. First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights. Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past. Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones... Not going to happen.

And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......

Well I don't think it will hurt to have them. But I still don't think it will happen at all. There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.

And a lot more without them that aren't........

But I don't think you can name any that have had real voting rights or any kind of stable government.

Germany....and the countries Germany conquered and then began transporting it's citizens to the death camps....Belgium, Norway, France, and the others.......

 

[Brain357]

There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps. First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights. Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past. Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones... Not going to happen.

And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......

Well I don't think it will hurt to have them. But I still don't think it will happen at all. There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.

And a lot more without them that aren't........

But I don't think you can name any that have had real voting rights or any kind of stable government.

Germany....and the countries Germany conquered and then began transporting it's citizens to the death camps....Belgium, Norway, France, and the others.......

Sure and they had just been destroyed in WWI, you'd call that a stable government? And that was way before cable tv, cell phones, the internet...

 

[kaz]

Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?

Damn, you really are dumb. Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government. Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available? If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.

Where did he say that?