Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.
1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.
Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.
2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.
3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.
4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Are you drunk?Let's see...they outlawed the manufacture of the Thompson but you can still get one from the dealer? Tommy guns are wildly inaccurate in full auto so you would be wrong, they are less lethal in general than a AR or AK. Plus they are a sub gun, chambered for a pistol round, the .45 acp. That's why the military isn't issuing them these days.Let's start out with banning manufacture of certain guns. The Thompson was a huge problem and every criminal worth his salts owned one. After they outlawed the manufacture, the gun slowly disappeared. And if you think the Thompson is any less lethal than a full auto M-16 or AK-47/74 you would be wrong. It took about a decade to get it out of most hands. If you want one now, you have to purchase it from a gun collector.
I see some similarities in the mass shootings. Large Capacity Mags, high fire rate to name the most common. The Handguns have done only a very small percentage of the killings as has shotguns. When you have a 32/50/100 round clip of either a 9mm or 556 you can do a lot of damage fast. Stop manufacturing these things and with a decade they will be gone from the Criminal Element.
I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.
You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.
They no longer allow the Chopper in the gun contests anymore since they had a tendancy to win. While the 2nd and later bullets were inaccurate, the first one was dead on. But since they are Automatic Weapons and not in the general population they are no longer used in the shootouts.
I just love it. If you say lie enough times does that make it true? The General public isn't buying it anymore.
The point you made is that you were rambling and don't know what you're talking about. At least being drunk would have been an excuse.I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Are you drunk?Let's see...they outlawed the manufacture of the Thompson but you can still get one from the dealer? Tommy guns are wildly inaccurate in full auto so you would be wrong, they are less lethal in general than a AR or AK. Plus they are a sub gun, chambered for a pistol round, the .45 acp. That's why the military isn't issuing them these days.Let's start out with banning manufacture of certain guns. The Thompson was a huge problem and every criminal worth his salts owned one. After they outlawed the manufacture, the gun slowly disappeared. And if you think the Thompson is any less lethal than a full auto M-16 or AK-47/74 you would be wrong. It took about a decade to get it out of most hands. If you want one now, you have to purchase it from a gun collector.
I see some similarities in the mass shootings. Large Capacity Mags, high fire rate to name the most common. The Handguns have done only a very small percentage of the killings as has shotguns. When you have a 32/50/100 round clip of either a 9mm or 556 you can do a lot of damage fast. Stop manufacturing these things and with a decade they will be gone from the Criminal Element.
I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.
You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.
They no longer allow the Chopper in the gun contests anymore since they had a tendancy to win. While the 2nd and later bullets were inaccurate, the first one was dead on. But since they are Automatic Weapons and not in the general population they are no longer used in the shootouts.
I just love it. If you say lie enough times does that make it true? The General public isn't buying it anymore.
I can always tell when the point is made. The other side starts to use insults.
The point you made is that you were rambling and don't know what you're talking about. At least being drunk would have been an excuse.I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Are you drunk?Let's see...they outlawed the manufacture of the Thompson but you can still get one from the dealer? Tommy guns are wildly inaccurate in full auto so you would be wrong, they are less lethal in general than a AR or AK. Plus they are a sub gun, chambered for a pistol round, the .45 acp. That's why the military isn't issuing them these days.Let's start out with banning manufacture of certain guns. The Thompson was a huge problem and every criminal worth his salts owned one. After they outlawed the manufacture, the gun slowly disappeared. And if you think the Thompson is any less lethal than a full auto M-16 or AK-47/74 you would be wrong. It took about a decade to get it out of most hands. If you want one now, you have to purchase it from a gun collector.
I see some similarities in the mass shootings. Large Capacity Mags, high fire rate to name the most common. The Handguns have done only a very small percentage of the killings as has shotguns. When you have a 32/50/100 round clip of either a 9mm or 556 you can do a lot of damage fast. Stop manufacturing these things and with a decade they will be gone from the Criminal Element.
I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.
You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.
They no longer allow the Chopper in the gun contests anymore since they had a tendancy to win. While the 2nd and later bullets were inaccurate, the first one was dead on. But since they are Automatic Weapons and not in the general population they are no longer used in the shootouts.
I just love it. If you say lie enough times does that make it true? The General public isn't buying it anymore.
I can always tell when the point is made. The other side starts to use insults.
Go educate yourself first, it isn't my job.The point you made is that you were rambling and don't know what you're talking about. At least being drunk would have been an excuse.I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Are you drunk?Let's see...they outlawed the manufacture of the Thompson but you can still get one from the dealer? Tommy guns are wildly inaccurate in full auto so you would be wrong, they are less lethal in general than a AR or AK. Plus they are a sub gun, chambered for a pistol round, the .45 acp. That's why the military isn't issuing them these days.
I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.
You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.
They no longer allow the Chopper in the gun contests anymore since they had a tendancy to win. While the 2nd and later bullets were inaccurate, the first one was dead on. But since they are Automatic Weapons and not in the general population they are no longer used in the shootouts.
I just love it. If you say lie enough times does that make it true? The General public isn't buying it anymore.
I can always tell when the point is made. The other side starts to use insults.
How's that corner feel. YOu want to get out of it, discuss things without insults. Otherwise, you are just helping the other side. Works for me either way.
Go educate yourself first, it isn't my job.The point you made is that you were rambling and don't know what you're talking about. At least being drunk would have been an excuse.I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Are you drunk?They no longer allow the Chopper in the gun contests anymore since they had a tendancy to win. While the 2nd and later bullets were inaccurate, the first one was dead on. But since they are Automatic Weapons and not in the general population they are no longer used in the shootouts.
I just love it. If you say lie enough times does that make it true? The General public isn't buying it anymore.
I can always tell when the point is made. The other side starts to use insults.
How's that corner feel. YOu want to get out of it, discuss things without insults. Otherwise, you are just helping the other side. Works for me either way.
This is ridiculous and ignorant.Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.
Mark
Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.
So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?
And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.
Hmm.
I buy guns because I can, and I intend to keep that option.
You "intend to keep that option", so, if someone changes the law you'll become a terrorist then?
No one has the authority to change the law, other than the American people through the amendment process.
If the law is arbitrarily changed outside of that process, I can guarantee there will be business between the public servants responsible and the American people.
The people have the authority to change laws through the political process, where their elected representatives are at liberty to enact, amend, or repeal laws at the behest of the people.
The 'amendment process' concerns solely amending the Constitution, having nothing to do with the issue of firearm regulatory policy, which is itself law, law that can be enacted, amended, or repealed through the political process reflecting the will of the people.
And when the people err, and enact measures believed to be repugnant to Constitutional jurisprudence, those adversely effected are at liberty to file suit and seek relief in Federal court, and if indeed a measure is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, invalidated by the court.
Firearm regulatory measures enacted at the behest of the people that pass Constitutional muster in no way 'infringe' on the Second Amendment right, they are proper, just, and lawful measures having nothing to do with the 'amendment process.'
Oh boy, a threat for the two way range already. I hope you're on a watch list.I am trying to educate you. But it appears that's a lost cause. As for not knowing anything, I am a retired Military Member with a ton of experience with all kinds of weapons. So I guess the educate myself doesn't apply since I have had real pros educate me. Do I own a gun? Good question. The only way to answer that is to find out for yourself when you try to infringe on my rights like you would like to.Go educate yourself first, it isn't my job.How's that corner feel. YOu want to get out of it, discuss things without insults. Otherwise, you are just helping the other side. Works for me either way.The point you made is that you were rambling and don't know what you're talking about. At least being drunk would have been an excuse.I can always tell when the point is made. The other side starts to use insults.I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Are you drunk?
That type of education is a final solution that other options are probably better.
Well that depends what you think the 2A says.
The 2A is, first and foremost, a LIMIT on the power of the US govts.
The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons. The govts are therefore not allowed to prevent you from owning weapons. That doesn't mean they can't prevent you owning certain weapons.
The right to bear arms is insignificant in this case, as the right is merely the right to be in the militia.
The Dick Act of 1902 sorted that out and basically made the right to bear arms a non-event in US politics anyway (with the exception of people who claim it's the right to carry arms around as you see fit).
Beyond ownership of arms there are plenty of ways, if you're being creative, of limiting arms in society.
This is ridiculous and ignorant.Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.
So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?
And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.
Hmm.
I buy guns because I can, and I intend to keep that option.
You "intend to keep that option", so, if someone changes the law you'll become a terrorist then?
No one has the authority to change the law, other than the American people through the amendment process.
If the law is arbitrarily changed outside of that process, I can guarantee there will be business between the public servants responsible and the American people.
The people have the authority to change laws through the political process, where their elected representatives are at liberty to enact, amend, or repeal laws at the behest of the people.
The 'amendment process' concerns solely amending the Constitution, having nothing to do with the issue of firearm regulatory policy, which is itself law, law that can be enacted, amended, or repealed through the political process reflecting the will of the people.
And when the people err, and enact measures believed to be repugnant to Constitutional jurisprudence, those adversely effected are at liberty to file suit and seek relief in Federal court, and if indeed a measure is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, invalidated by the court.
Firearm regulatory measures enacted at the behest of the people that pass Constitutional muster in no way 'infringe' on the Second Amendment right, they are proper, just, and lawful measures having nothing to do with the 'amendment process.'
Congress has no authority to regulate firearms beyond interstate commerce. It is expressly forbidden by the Constitution from infringing in any way with the right itself.
The Constitution is the law. No law can supercede it, and all lesser law must respond to it, or be invalid. Only by the amendment process can it be altered.
The right to bear arms is insignificant in this case, as the right is merely the right to be in the militia ... Beyond ownership of arms there are plenty of ways, if you're being creative, of limiting arms in society.
So, go ahead.
Because we're talking about people going out and buying more guns because of a potential threat from Islamic militants.
But what's the connection to gun control?
Because we're talking about people going out and buying more guns because of a potential threat from Islamic militants.
But what's the connection to gun control?
Life began 4 Billion years ago and is an ongoing process.
That has nothing to do with the fact that fetuses aren't people.
Actually, that's exactly what it means.The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons. The govts are therefore not allowed to prevent you from owning weapons. That doesn't mean they can't prevent you owning certain weapons.
The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the government (ANY government) had no say at all in what weapons you could own and carry. They feared that a government given the tiniest bit of power to regulate anything having to do with people's weapons, would turn it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and start twisting the "interpretation" of that power into more and more authrotiy to restrict and ban guns - just as the present government in thei country is doing. The Framers saw our paranoid gun-rights-haters coming a mile away.
Some people might object to the idea of government having no say. Though they'd be hard pressed to come up with a better scheme to reduce violence while keeping government at bay.
But pretending the 2nd doesn't say that at all, is silly to the point of being ridiculous.
In modern language: "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
Life began 4 Billion years ago and is an ongoing process.
That has nothing to do with the fact that fetuses aren't people.
Get real:
View attachment 58874
Repeating your error won't make it true. The people have the right to bear arms, there's a 230 year discussion on why, only lately do post modern liberals think they've unveiled the real truth. The people tell the government what they want, Fuckhead, NOT the other way around!No, you're wrong. The whole point of the 2A is so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons, and weapons that would be useful for the militia. Guns that aren't safe, guns that don't work properly etc etc aren't protected.
An individual can't have a nuclear weapon, for example. Why not? Because it's not a usual militia weapon and also it doesn't meet the requirements of what the militia is all about.
As long as individuals are able to own militia type weapons, then the govt hasn't done anything wrong. The limitation on power merely prevents the US govt stopping people being able to own arms, not stopping them owning ALL TYPES of arms.
The whole point is the amendment is designed to make sure individuals can have weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but not to give the individuals the right to own EVERY type of weapon.
There is a fine line between what is and what isn't acceptable as a weapon, and who decides is based on what the govt says in the first place. That doesn't mean it's an open ended book.
Just what I thought...you danced away from your bullshit lies so you didn't have to respond to another post you can't comprehend! You know nothing about that case and its relevance to what was being discussed!You're obviously insane.So you agree that the Necessary and Proper clause confers no new power to the federal government. Good.You are an idiot. Like thats news. Read the clause. IT is not carte blanche for anything. It is there to facilitate ONLY those powers specifically enumerated elsewhere.Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;
That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.
Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????
Do you understand what "intrastate" means? Yes or no.
I KNOW precisely what the final clause of Article I, Section 8 says within its constitutional context. YOU are the one distorting the matter. Its meaning is EMPHASIZED below, made redundant by your ignorance, and this time pay attention to the context of the BOLD portion that says FOREGOING POWERS, dipstick, which would be the preceding 17 clauses, the other enumerated powers of Congress along with;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]
Regarding the commerce clause, you wrote this in your former response to me, IDIOT;
Given your first sentence deals with INTRASTATE commerce, but I made no mention of that (commerce within the borders of a given State), hence that response to your irrational reply. Regarding your second sentence, WTF does that have to do with what I had posted to that point, IDIOT? And read up on when a commodity or goods become interstate commerce...see Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.
Your case cite does not mean what you think it means.
Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns. Every interstate transaction to a private individual must be subject to a background check, with certain small exceptions.
SO what the libs want is to extend that requirement to intrastate transactions, since interstate transactions are already covered. That is beyond the power of the federal government.
Rabbi, you're a gold plated IDIOT!
I NEVER represented that the necessary and proper clause had any other powers that it had when the Constitution was ratified. But you, on the other hand, never wanted to say what that clause actually meant. Now suddenly, YOU ARE THE ONE AGREEING WITH ME AFTER I HAD TO POST THE CLAUSE VERBATIM TO YOU TWO FREAKIN' TIMES! It finally took the second time.
If what you say is true, and Carter v. Carter Coal Co. doesn't mean what I think it means, FIRST tell me what YOU think I think it means and SECOND what its relevance is to our discussion. That's not a trick question at all if you've actually read the case in the 11 minutes between my post mentioning it and your response and understood it in the context of our "talks". Will you respond to this or go into your usual dance to shift the narrative away from your perfidy?
